Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

MERSEY DOCKS AND HARBOUR BOARD (No. 2) BILL [Lords]

Read the Third time and passed, without Amendment.

BRITISH TRANSPORT DOCKS (No. 2) BILL

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

SELECTION

Mr. Brian Batsford discharged from the Committee of Selection; Mr. Francis Pym added.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING

Local Authority Tenants (Racial Discrimination)

Sir G. Sinclair: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what consideration he has given to the Political and Economic Planning report on racial discrimination, a copy of which has been sent to him; and if, while legislation is being considered, he will send a circular to local authorities advising them to end any discriminatory practices in the allocation of housing and to use housing need as the sole criterion.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Anthony Greenwood): The report is being studied as part of the Government's general review of the Race Relations Act. Decisions on the need for legislation or further advice will be taken when the review has been completed. The Government have made it

clear that they expect local authorities to ensure that their policies for allocating tenancies do not discriminate against immigrants.

Sir G. Sinclair: While welcoming that reply, may I ask the Minister to recognise that this discrimination in local authority housing amounts to the public treatment of Commonwealth immigrants as second-class citizens, and will he take all steps possible to put an end to this?

Mr. Greenwood: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for what he has said. I hope he will accept that I detest racial discrimination as much as he does, and if there is solid evidence of racial discrimination on the part of local authorities we shall certainly take it into account in our general review of the need for legislation.

Mr. Russell Kerr: Has my right hon, Friend's attention been drawn to the remarks, reported in this morning's Press, by Sir William Carron on the subject of racial discrimination against immigrants, and will he publicly dissociate himself and the Government from those remarks?

Mr. Greenwood: I think that that goes rather wide of the Question, but I have said how much I personally deplore any sort of racial discrimination.

City Centres (Redevelopment and Conversion Schemes)

Sir G. Sinclair: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government, in view of the special treatment accorded to development areas and the Government's acceptance of the Plowden principle of educational priority areas, what proposals he has for establishing similar principles for dealing with housing in the twilight areas of the main city centres by way of redevelopment or conversion schemes.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Robert Mellish): The Government have already given priority to areas with specially heavy slum clearance and overcrowding problems in their housing programme, and special attention will be given to twilight areas in the review of legislation relating to older houses, and their environment.

Sir G. Sinclair: I welcome that reply, but may I ask the Minister to let the House know at an early date what extra funds he is seeking to give effect to the promise he has now made?

Mr. Mellish: A review is taking place. We are having consultations, not only with local authorities, but with all those interested in this problem, and as the hon. Gentleman probably knows a special study has just been completed by the sub-committee of our Housing Committee. I hope that later in the year my right hon. Friend will be in a position to say clearly what he intends to do.

Mr. Graham Page: In his original reply the hon. Gentleman mentioned the review of legislation. When is it likely that the chicken will come out of this egg?

Mr. Mellish: I hope in the not too distant future, and I give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that before the chicken comes out of the egg he will be involved in the hatching ceremony.

Local Authority Houses (Rent Changes)

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will now introduce legislation to avoid local authorities unnecessarily alarming council house tenants by having to serve a notice to quit on them when the councils require to alter their rents.

Mr. Mellish: My right hon. Friend must first consider the advice of the Law Commission, which has been looking into this matter. He expects to receive its report in the course of next month.

Mr. Allaun: Is my hon. Friend aware that for the last six or seven years I have been fobbed off by successive Housing Ministers with promises of future legislation? Will he act where others have failed to act?

Mr. Mellish: We are acting in the sense that we have asked the Law Commission to look into this matter in general. We are expecting its report next month. Its terms of reference were to consider whether a notice to quit is an essential prerequisite to a change of rent. and whether legislation is desirable to rectify the position. I hope that within the next month we can do something about it.

Sir J. Langford-Holt: Is there any possibility of issuing with the notice to quit an explanatory leaflet, which would go a long way to satisfying the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun)?

Mr. Mellish: I understand that some local authorities have found a way of avoiding the service of a notice to quit in some circumstances, but the legal validity of this is not without doubt. It is because of this that we have had to seek the Law Commission's advice.

Optional Mortgage Scheme

Mr. Winnick: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what plans are being made to publicise the optional mortage scheme so that existing owner-occupiers can decide whether or not they wish to take advantage of this scheme.

Mr. Greenwood: The main basis of the publicity will be an explanatory pamphlet which will be available, when the time comes, from all the lending agencies concerned and from citizens' advice bureaux.
We shall supplement this with an extensive advertising campaign in the national Press and, it is hoped, some publicity on television and radio.

Mr. Winnick: Since, apparently, owner-occupiers must make up their minds by the end of the year, will not more publicity be required than is envisaged by the Ministry? Will my right hon. Friend consider making a television appearance in order to give publicity to the scheme?

Mr. Greenwood: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for his suggestion, which I hope will be noted in other places. The proposal is that 5 million pamphlets shall be made available in July for people who have to make their choice about the end of September. I think that our immediate proposal is adequate. We shall consider the position further if it turns out that it does not have the response we hope for.

Mr. Graham Page: Has the right hon. Gentleman read the report of a large building society, which has had to put all this on a computer, that it is impossible to explain it in pamphlet form? Is the right hon. Gentleman doing anything to


see that it is put on a computer, as a public service for those who will have to decide whether or not to choose the option mortgage?

Mr. Greenwood: No, Sir. This showed how wrong the hon. Member was to press us to introduce the scheme more rapidly than we propose to do.

Rent Rebate Schemes

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government how many local authorities now operate schemes in respect of rents which concentrate subsidies on those who need them; how many local authorities operate no such schemes; and what steps he is taking to secure that effective schemes for this purpose are operated by all local authorities.

Mr. Greenwood: I would refer the right hon. Member to the details of rent rebate schemes contained in Housing Statistics 1965–66 published by the Institute of Municipal Treasurers and Accountants. I am consulting the local authority associations on the need to issue fresh guidance to local authorities on rent rebate schemes.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that it is now two years since his predecessor's White Paper urged action upon local authorities to this end? In view of the large sums of public money, by way of subsidy which the right hon. Gentleman is responsible for channelling, is it not necessary for him to press local authorities hard, even though the number of them requiring such pressure has been conspicuously reduced as a result of the events of the last few days?

Mr. Greenwood: We have had a working party at officer level considering this question. Its report is now available, and I hope to discuss it with the elected representatives of the local authority associations in the near future. As the right hon. Gentleman will be aware, we shall shortly be having a debate on the matter in the House, when the Housing Subsidies Bill comes back from another place.

Mr. Christopher Price: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that rent rebate schemes are fundamentally undesirable things, and are only temporary stop-gaps until we can put into force reasonable

minimum wage legislation and bring pensions up to their proper level?

Mr. Greenwood: I cannot accept that. There are rent rebate schemes and rent rebate schemes. Some of those operated by local authorities are little more than travesties of rent rebate schemes. There is no reason why properly thought out and properly prepared rent rebate schemes should not be a great act of social justice.

Local Authority Houses (Rents)

Mr. Biffen: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if, in furtherance of the Government's prices and incomes policy, he proposes to invite local authorities to inform him of increases in council house rentals.

Mr. Greenwood: Parliament has given local authorities responsibility for fixing the rents of their houses and I have no power to intervene. Comprehensive information is published, however, annually by the Institute of Municipal Treasurers and Accountants.

Mr. Biffen: Does not the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that under the White Paper which is to govern the next stage of the Government's prices and incomes policy there are no compulsory powers enabling the Government to intervene concerning the prices of manufactured goods? None the less, the Government wish for notification. Why do not they place council house rents in the same category?

Mr. Greenwood: The point is that local authorities have to balance their housing revenue accounts under the Statutes passed by this House. I have every reason to believe that we can rely on them not to raise rents unless they are convinced that it is essential.

Mr. Lubbock: Has not there been inequity in this matter during the period of freeze and restraint, as between the tenants of local authorities and tenants of private landlords, in that local authorities have been free to raise their rents whereas private landlords have had to maintain their rents at the existing levels, whether controlled or regulated? The tenants of their properties have had an advantage as compared with council house tenants.

Mr. Greenwood: The hon. Gentleman is overlooking the fact that the great majority of local authorities keep their rents steady.

Mr. Spriggs: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what incentive he provides local authorities with to avoid steep rent increases; what has been the response to his appeal to defer rent increases; what other action he intends to take to assist local authorities to balance their housing revenue accounts; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Greenwood: Local authorities generally have given support to the standstill and severe restraint since 20th July, 1966, within the limits imposed by their statutory duties. It is the purpose of the bigger subsidies provided for in the Housing Subsidies Bill to give greater assistance to local authorities towards meeting housing costs.

Mr. Spriggs: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, but is he not aware that one of the biggest single factors in the cost of housing our people, especially for the local housing authorities, is the high interest rates charged for money borrowed to build and maintain those houses? When will he and his colleagues do something about these interest rates to help the people now?

Mr. Greenwood: I appreciate what my hon. Friend has said and the concern he feels, but the Housing Subsidies Bill which is now before Parliament will have exactly the effect he wants. That is, it will give local authorities the opportunity of borrowing money at a fixed 4 per cent.

Building Societies (Mortgage Rates)

Mr. William Price: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what discussions he has had with the building societies on the level of mortgage rates, following the recent reductions in the Bank Rate.

Mr. Greenwood: I have continuing discussions with the builders and the building societies. The general view of the Building Societies Association is that in order to support a rising programme of housebuilding, the societies will have to retain their present investment and lending rates for the time being.

Mr. Price: Would my right hon. Friend kindly urge the building societies to "pull their fingers out"? Is it not becoming obvious that they pay far more attention to the Bank Rate when it goes up than they do when it comes down? If, as we are led to think, all that goes up must come down, why should this not apply to mortgage rates?

Mr. Greenwood: My hon. Friend will appreciate that my concern is that funds should be available for building private houses, particularly in anticipation of the operation of the option mortgage scheme next year. So far as pulling their fingers out is concerned, my hon. Friend will be glad to learn that, in March, the receipts of the building societies were £153 million, and their new commitments £139 million, which is approximately double the amount in December, 1966.

Sir G. Nabarro: Is it not a fact that this is a problem afflicting owner-occupiers? As mortgage interest may be chargeable against Income Tax assessment, is not the proper recourse to increase the Income Tax allowances for mortgage interest? Would not that solve the problem?

Mr. Greenwood: The best thing would be for the hon. Gentleman to read the Housing Subsidies Bill and the proposal for option mortgages.

House Prices

Mr. Allason: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what action he has taken to reduce the cost of houses.

Mr. Hamling: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what further powers he will now seek to control the cost of building houses.

Mr. Mellish: The most effective way to reduce the price of houses is by increasing the supply, and the Government are giving this higher priority than for many years past. My right hon. Friend is taking a number of steps to make sure that houses built by local authorities give good value for money. He is today issuing a circular setting out cost yardsticks based on Parker-Morris standards. My right hon. Friend is introducing a single mandatory floor-to-floor height and he is encouraging better contractual procedures


and greater standardisation of components.

Mr. Allason: Does the hon. Gentleman remember the promises of his party in 1964 about reducing the cost of houses? Is he not aware that the costs of houses are steadily rising and that there has been a forecast that there will be a rise of a further 10 per cent. this year?

Mr. Mellish: I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman is now asking for. Does he want the Government to introduce legislation to control the price of housing? If so, he had better get up and say so.

Mr. Spriggs: Has my hon. Friend considered writing off at least a proportion of the heavy financial debts of local authorities to the Ministry?

Mr. Mellish: That is another question. The whole problem of housing revenue accounts—although it is not related to this Question is under investigation by my right hon. Friend.

National House Builders' Registration Council

Mr. Brooks: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what proportion of houses completed in 1965 and 1966, respectively, was built by members of the National House Builders' Registration Council; and what proportion of all building firms is currently registered as members of that body.

Mr. Mellish: I am afraid that the information is not available in the form requested. About 70 per cent. of all private sector housing is at present being built by registered builders.

Mr. Brooks: I congratulate my hon. Friend on what is evidently excellent progress in the last two years, but may I ask whether he has closed his mind to the possibility of imposing 100 per cent. compulsory registration by the end of the year?

Mr. Mellish: We have consulted the N.H.B.R.C. on the matter and my right hon. Friend and the council are satisfied that, by the voluntary means now being followed, we can achieve 100 per cent. registration without any compulsion from this House. At the moment, 90 per cent. of the larger firms and 5,500 of the smaller firms are already registered, and

a further 300 have come forward to apply for registration. Judging by the way things are going now, we believe that the way we are doing it is the right way.

Local Authority Houses (Sale)

Mr. Brooks: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will encourage local authorities to build houses for sale.

Mr. Greenwood: Building for sale is primarily the job of the private builders and I consider that, at the present time, local authorities should undertake such building only where the demand is not being adequately met by private builders and where it will not prejudice their primary duty of meeting the urgent need for rented housing.

Mr. Brooks: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that, while many hon. Members on this side of the House deplore the sale of council houses for party political profit, there might nevertheless be an advantage to local authorities in seeking to cater for a rather wider range of housing need among the community?

Mr. Greenwood: I would not want to divert the energy of local authorities away from the building of houses for rent, which I believe to be their prime function. However, I am prepared to make exceptions; in the case, for example, of town centre redevelopment schemes, catering for new industries or to make a proper social balance in certain areas.

Mr. Sandys: Pending the building of a great many more houses for sale at moderate prices, would the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that he will not seek to discourage the Greater London Council from selling council houses to its tenants?

Mr. Greenwood: That is, of course, quite a different question, but the right hon. Gentleman is no doubt aware of the extremely helpful circular which I issued to local authorities shortly before the county council elections.

Mr. Spriggs: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some of the capacity of the direct building departments of many of our large local authorities could be used for building houses for sale, and why not?

Mr. Greenwood: I think that I have answered the question fully. We are prepared to make exceptions, and if my hon. Friend has any cases in mind I hope that he will let me have the details.

Rent Act, 1965 (Prosecutions)

Mr. Barnes: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government how many prosecutions there have been to the latest available date, under the Rent Act, 1965, against landlords who try to get tenants to leave by means of violence, threats or other interference.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. James MacColl): Up to the end of 1966 there was 335 prosecutions for offences under Part III of the Rent Act, 1965–203 for harassment and 132 for unlawful eviction. One person was imprisoned and 192 fines were imposed.

Mr. Barnes: Would not my hon. Friend agree that, in areas where landlords and tenants often tend to live in the same house, this is a considerable problem? Would it be possible for the police to take more positive action when complaints are made instead of merely referring the matter to the local authority?

Mr. MacColl: My right hon. Friend is reviewing the working of the Act in this context, but, as far as we know, the police are co-operating adequately with local authorities.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Hertfordshire (Derelict Cars)

Mr. Longden: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what action has so far been taken by the Hertfordshire County Council to implement his Department's circular No. 8/65 about derelict cars.

Mr. MacColl: The circular mainly concerned action by district councils and other refuse-collecting authorities. It asked county councils to co-ordinate action by district councils. I understand that Hertfordshire, after discussion with its district councils, concluded that adequate arrangements for co-ordination had already been made.

Mr. Longden: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that is a rather disappointing reply, and that very soon there will be about 1 million derelict cars a year to be disposed of? Will he bring to the attention of these authorities the various processes which are available for disposing very quickly of cars, and which will actually pay for the privilege of doing so?

Mr. MacColl: Hertfordshire district authorities are working together, and are, I believe, negotiating to tender with the firm which works for the Greater London Council in this respect.

Mr. John Hall: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this is an extremely serious problem in areas of natural beauty, for example the Chiltern Hills and the Buckinghamshire woods? Recently in the woods near High Wycombe about 60 cars had to be taken away, and the same sort of number is accumulating in the very same place. Will the hon. Gentleman therefore impress on the councils concerned the urgency of this matter?

Mr. MacColl: The Civic Amenities Bill which is now in another place will impose an obligation on local authorities to deal with this kind of refuse.

Refuse Collection (Working Party's Report)

Mr. Longden: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what results have been achieved as a result of the report of the working party on refuse collection.

Mr. MacColl: The working party, to whom my right hon. Friend is most grateful, has prepared a very valuable report, which he will be publishing shortly.

Mr. Longden: Does not the Minister consider that it does not seem to have very much effect in respect of the streets, which are littered as if a paper-chase had gone through them?

Mr. McColl: This is an extremely good report. I commend it to the hon. Gentleman and hope that he will study it.

Building Design (Disabled People)

Sir J. Langford-Holt: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will issue a circular to


all housing and planning authorities drawing their attention to the need to make certain in the design of buildings that account is taken of the needs of disabled people by the adoption of wide doors, low steps, handrails and the provision of lifts to the lowest level.

Mr. Mellish: The Department issued to local authorities in 1964 and 1965 circulars containing recommendations on most of these matters. I am sending copies to the hon. Member. My right hon. Friend does not think that a further circular is called for, but will gladly consider any suggestions the hon. Gentleman may wish to make.

Sir J. Langford-Holt: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that these circulars are having the desired effect?

Mr. Mellish: Yes, Sir. The information we have is that, by and large, the plans coming to our Department through local authorities are following the recommendations which have been promoted. We do not see all the plans, however, and if the hon. Member has any particular example in mind we shall be glad to look into it.

Mr. Graham Page: Is the Minister aware that it is all very well for him to ask my hon. Friend for suggestions? Has not he some suggestions for furthering this? Does not he think that this is a very important matter, and that somehow local authorities should be forced to comply with these recommendations?

Mr. Mellish: The hon. Member must have misunderstood my reply. We have no reason to be dissatisfied with what is going on. Circulars have been sent out by this Government and by previous Governments. We believe that local authorities are complying with what we have asked them. I made the obvious point that if the hon. Member for Shrewsbury (Sir J. Langford-Holt) knew of any isolated case we should be glad to look into it.

Land Sales (Levy)

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what steps he proposes to take to avoid sellers of land passing on the 40 per cent. levy by adding it to the selling price.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Frederick Willey): My right hon. Friend does not think that any action is needed at present. Purchasers have the remedy in their own hands by refusing to pay increased prices, but I have asked the Land Commission to keep a close watch on the situation and he ready to use its powers of compulsory purchase if necessary.

Mr. Allaun: Is the Minister aware that I am grateful for his last few words? Some of us fear that there will be widespread evasion and the defeat of the intention of the Act. Would not the best safeguard be to have far more compulsory purchases by the Commission than is at present expected, since this would mean that the Commission would fix the price?

Mr. Willey: I can assure my hon. Friend that the Commission's powers will be used if necessary.

Mr. Allason: In the Minister's close watch has there been any sign of houses becoming any cheaper as a result of the Land Commission Bill?

Mr. Willey: I have been concerned with land prices, and there has been no sign that they have increased.

Mr. William Price: Can my right hon. Friend tell us of any single tax in the history of this country that has not found its way to the man in the street? Does not he agree that the Land Commission will make nonsense of the Government's pledge to keep down prices, and that the only answer is public ownership of all development land?

Mr. Willey: The landowner has always endeavoured to obtain the highest price from the developer, and he will continue to do so. The Land Commission will see that land is brought forward where required.

Sir G. Nabarro: Is it not a fact that this practice is an inevitable comcomitant of the taxing of betterment values? Would it not be better to abolish the Land Commission and let land find its natural value?

Mr. Willey: It is obvious that the hon. Member has not studied the problem. The House is committed to a levy, tax or charge. The Land Commission has


been established to ensure that land will be in supply adequate to meet the needs of development.

Multi-Occupied Dwellings

Mr. Winnick: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will circularise local authorities to encourage them to purchase multi-occupied dwellings in overcrowded areas such as Notting Hill.

Mr. Molloy: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what plans he has to assist those local authorities that have problems of multi-occupation.

Mr. Mellish: Problems of multi-occupation are among those being studied in the general review of legislation on the older housing stock but most local authorities find that the present powers, if resolutely used, can do a great deal. My right hon. Friend is ready to consider proposals to purchase in the light of particular circumstances.

Mr. Winnick: Is my hon. Friend aware that many people feel that the local council in the Notting Hill area has seriously fallen down on the job? Would he consider investigating the record of this borough council to try to improve its shocking housing record?

Mr. Mellish: These old houses in Notting Hill are, I believe, in the hands of companies which are in liquidation, and some serious problems have arisen. I am advised that necessary repairs are still being carried out. Of course, the decision to acquire older properties is for the local authorities themselves, which can then promote them to us for endorsement. It is not for me, at this Box, to tell a local authority what to do.

Mr. Molloy: Would my hon. Friend consider granting to those local authorities which have this special problem—Ealing Borough Council, for example—similar powers to those conferred on the Birmingham Corporation to help them control this problem of multiple occupation, which could be a very dangerous menace?

Mr. Mellish: The Birmingham scheme is an experiment. We are watching it closely and shall certainly wish later to consider giving these powers to local

authorities generally. This is all part of our review. In fact, even within the existing powers today, a local authority which has the will can quickly find a way.

Mr. Allason: Are not housing associations a better way of dealing with this problem than piecemeal acquisition by local authorities?

Mr. Mellish: The hon. Gentleman will know that we have done a great deal for housing associations, particularly by way of financial encouragement in our Housing Subsidies Bill. They can make an important contribution to this problem, but I would generally agree with my hon. Friend that this is primarily the responsibility of local authorities.

Unoccupied Property (Rating)

Mr. William Price: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government, how many local authorities have begun the rating of empty property.

Mr. MacColl: Fifty-five rating authorities have resolved that the provisions for rating unoccupied property shall apply to their areas starting this year, and so far one rating authority has resolved to start next year. With permission I shall circulate a list of the authorities in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Price: Would not my hon. Friend agree that that is a very disappointing figure? What steps is he taking to improve the situation?

Mr. MacColl: It depends how high my hon. Friend's expectations were. The figure of 55 is about what I thought we would get. This will be a valuable experiment to see how effective the provisions are. I have no doubt that other local authorities will take advantage of it later.

Mr. Lubbock: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the London Borough of Bromley has decided not to rate vacant properties, thus wasting thousands of pounds for the taxpayers of that borough and leading to properties remaining vacant in an area of short supply? Would the Government not have done better to accept the Rating (Unoccupied Hereditaments) Bill of 1965, which made it mandatory for local authorities to rate vacant property?

Mr. MacColl: I am always surprised that the Liberal Party should be preemptory in these matters. It is better, when there is a good deal of difference of opinion, to allow an adoptive Clause to see how it works.

Following is the information:

Rating authorities in England and Wales who have resolved that the provisions in the General Rate Ac,, 1967, with respect to the rating of unoccupied property shall apply to their areas

County Boroughs

Bournemouth; Coventry; Eastbourne; Exeter.

London Boroughs

Hounslow; Newham; Waltham Forest.

Non-County Boroughs and Urban Districts
Alsager; Ashby de la Zouche; Barry; Beaumaris; Cannock; Chepstow; Clay Cross; Coalville; Crawley; Eccles; Hadleigh; Hales-worth; Halstead; Heanor; Hitchin; Hornsea; Horsham; Keighley; Letchworth; Loughborough; Maidstone*; Melksham; Melton Mowbray; Neath; Newcastle under Lyme; Petersfield; Portland; Potters Bar; Ramsgate; Royston; Shoreham by Sea; Stevenage; Tamworih; Taunton; Todmorden; Tonbridge; Tring; Tunbridge Wells; Watford; Wellington; Wisbech.

Rural Districts
Ashby de la Zouche; South Cambridge; South Kesteven; Wantage; Warminster and Westbury; Warmley; Watford; West Dean.
* In Maidstone the provisions apply from 1st April, 1968; in all other cases they apply from 1st April, 1967.

Wash Barrage Scheme (Feasibility Study)

Mr. Pym: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government (1) why he rejected the recommendation of the Water Resources Board that a feasibility study of the Wash barrage scheme should be undertaken at an early date;
(2) what representations he has received against the forthcoming loss of agricultural land to reservoirs within the area covered by the Great Ouse River Authority; and what reply he has sent.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what recent representations he has received about his refusal to allow the feasibility study of the Wash barrage scheme to go ahead; and what replies he has sent.

Mr. MacColl: My right hon. Friend has received a letter from the President of the National Farmers' Union and telegrams from two branches. In his replies

he has agreed to receive a deputation shortly.
In his view, we should not at present be justified in spending a large sum on studying the barrage proposal. On present information the barrage would appear much more expensive than other means of obtaining the necessary water.

Mr. Pym: Does the hon. Gentleman not realise that, unless this feasibility study is begun now, it may turn out to be too late? For how long will the Government continue with their "couldn't care less "attitude to the prospective loss of thousands of acres of good agricultural land?

Mr. MacColl: The Government have a responsibility to keep down public expenditure, and it is surprising how often the Opposition ask for more expenditure. There is at present no justification for this additional expenditure of £1½ million.

Local Authority Employees (Closed Shop Policies)

Mr. Iremonger: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will issue a circular to local authorities giving guidance on the practice of imposing a closed shop on their employees, with special reference to candidates training in approved offices preparatory to taking Town and Country Planning in the final examination of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors.

Mr. Mellish: No, Sir. Local authorities are best left to form their own judgement on such matters. Moreover, the operation of closed shop policies comes within the terms of reference of the Royal Commission on Trade Unions and Employers' Associations.

Mr. Iremonger: Is the hon. Gentleman prepared to stand idly by? Will he not give some indication of his opinion that any closed shop is an intolerable invasion of personal liberty, and peculiarly odious in the case of students?

An Hon. Member: And lawyers.

Mr. Mellish: I am not aware of any special problem with regard to students. If the hon. Member has one in mind, we should like to know about it. We think that this is a matter best left to local authorities. One point I would make, and


which has often been made before in the House, is that it is ironic that those who will not belong to unions for one reason or another are the first to take any increases in wages or salaries achieved by the efforts of the unions.

Dawley New Town

Mr. Fowler: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he has made a decision yet on the extension of the Dawley New Town area to include Wellington and Oakengates.

Mr. Greenwood: No decision has yet been taken on whether to extend Dawley New Town to take in Wellington and Oakengates.

Mr. Fowler: is my right hon. Friend aware of the urgency of taking this decision both because of the effects of the planning freeze in the area and because of the desirability of moving as many people and firms as possible out of Birmingham in as short a time as possible?

Mr. Greenwood: Yes, I realise the importance of this, but it is an extremely complicated problem. I hope that my hon. Friend will bear in mind that the four-year development programme of Dawley has three years still to run, so we have a little time to make the right decision.

Mr. Christopher Price: Is not my right hon. Friend aware that this and other overspill schemes in the West Midlands area are of great interest to Birmingham Members and their constituents, and that tens of thousands of people in Birmingham are still waiting for a house?

Mr. Greenwood: I am well aware of that, and my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary recently visited Birmingham to discuss these matters with them.

Land (Estate Duty and Land Commission Levy)

Mr. Allason: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether it is intended that there shall be relief where there are charges of both Estate Duty and land commission levy on the development value of the same land in all cases where the double charge can be traced.

Mr. Willey: An appropriate allowance for levy purposes will be made under the provisions of Schedule 7 to the Land Commission Act for interests in land in respect of which liability for Estate Duty has arisen within the previous six years but where levy is charged on land which was owned by a company in which the deceased had shares and not by the deceased himself, the Schedule is obviously inapplicable.

Mr. Allason: But is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied with this position by which, because land is owned through a family company, double taxation is charged? Has he considered the case which I submitted to him, in which Estate Duty has been charged at 50 per cent., and a further 40 per cent.—making a total of 90 per cent.—will be charged on the value of that land?

Mr. Wiley: I am aware of the case which the hon. Gentleman mentions, where the land has not changed hands at all. I am also aware that, in that case, the possibility of the question of a charity arises.

Town Centre Redevelopment Schemes

Mr. Milne: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government (1) what consultations take place with local authorities prior to the commencement of a scheme for town centre redevelopment; and what percentage of local authorities avail themselves of the opportunity for consultation;
(2) if he will introduce legislation to compel local authorities to consult all parties concerned when contemplating town centre redevelopment schemes.

Mr. Willey: All local authorities have been urged in Planning Bulletins 1 and 3 issued by the Department, to consult local opinion fully on town centre redevelopment schemes. I believe most authorities do so and my right hon. Friend does not think that further legislation is required.

Mr. Milne: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, but is he aware that many local authorities have gone into schemes which are either beyond their financial needs or their financial ability and that many of these schemes


are turning into white elephants, detrimental not only to the shopping public but to shop workers as well? Will he examine this position?

Mr. Willey: I am not so aware, but if my hon. Friend brings cases to my notice, I will certainly look at them.

London Boroughs (Immigrant Settlements)

Mr. Bidwell: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he is aware of the problem of the London Boroughs, and in particular the Borough of Ealing, in dealing with concentration of immigrant settlements; and if he will give further assistance to such local authorities.

Mr. MacColl: I am well aware of this problem, on which my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary received a deputation from the local Members and council on 26th January. In the general review of legislation to which he referred in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) and my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Winnick), the special problems arising from concentrations of immigrant settlements will be borne in mind.

Mr. Bidwell: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Would he undertake to look carefully and sympathetically at any early representations which the London Borough of Ealing may make to him about this problem, particularly as it affects the Southall part of this London borough?

Mr. MacColl: Yes, Sir, although I am bound to remind my hon. Friend that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary has had very long and detailed discussions with the Ealing Council about this matter.

Sir C. Osborne: In view of the appalling conditions under which many of the immigrants are having to live in certain areas, is it not criminal madness to allow further immigrants to come into this country until this problem has been solved?

Mr. MacColl: Fortunately this is not a matter for my right hon. Friend, in that I do not have to think of an answer which would be polite enough to get through the House.

Mr. Molloy: May I inform my hon. Friend that he can rest assured that we

have tabled this Question in an effort to help solve what is a difficult problem and that we are not in any way affected by the detestable racialism of which we have just heard? [Interruption.] Would he agree that, in so far as the London Borough of Ealing has faced this problem, it has made splendid efforts—

Sir G. Nabarro: On a point of order. Is it not a fact that the words used by the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy), "contemptible racialism"—

Mr. Molloy: I said "detestable".

Sir G. Nabarro: —"detestable racialism" impute dishonourable motives to my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) and that they should, therefore, be withdrawn?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must leave the Chair to decide what is in order. Mr. Molloy.

Mr. Molloy: Would my hon. Friend agree that all the officers and members of the staff of the Ealing Borough Council have done as much as possible to try to get these people, who are members of our British Commonwealth, to be assimilated with the people of these islands—which, I think, is a fine and proper thing to do? Would he further—

Mr. Speaker: Order. There are many Questions on the Order Paper.

Mr. Molloy: Would my hon. Friend seek to—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must get on.

Sir C. Osborne: On a point of order. Have I no means of protecting my good name—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—against such unworthy and ignorant slurs, and since I was asking for protection for the immigrants who are already in this country, is there no means by which that dastardly kind of reflection can be stopped?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is making a political defence to what I think was a political attack. Mr. Tilney, next Question.

Dee Estuary (Report)

Mr. Tilney: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government when the report on the Dee Estuary will be made available to the public.

Mr. Hector Hughes: On a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: I hope that hon. Gentlemen will not waste Question time by continually raising points of order.

Mr. Hughes: On a point of order. With the greatest respect, Mr. Speaker, is it not out of order to put on the Order Paper an ambiguous Question of this kind, which does not indicate to which River Dee reference is being made?

Mr. Willey: The consulting engineers' preliminary report on the feasibility of a Dee crossing is expected to be published by mid-July.

Mr. Tilney: Since there is great interest in this imaginative scheme, not only among those who live in the local authority areas immediately contiguous to the shore of the English-Welsh Dee but among those who live further afield, especially on Merseyside, would the Minister make certain that other local authorities are taken into consultation when the report is published?

Mr. Wiley: I will bear the hon. Gentleman's remarks in mind. I appreciate his interest in this project, but what we are mainly concerned with is consultation with the planning authorities, the economic planning councils, the study group and those who are immediately affected.

Circular 50/66

Mr. Marquand: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government when he expects to reach a decision on the applications for loan sanction which have been made to him according to the procedure laid down in his Department's Circular 50/66.

Mr. Willey: My right hon. Friend hopes to decide on an initial programme of schemes soon. He cannot at this stage indicate the total size of the programme or its regional distribution.

Mr. Marquand: Can my hon. Friend give some idea of the criterion that will be employed to decide between the decisions which are made by different local authorities, and, in particular, will he give an assurance that the social needs of old industrial towns like Sutton-in-Ashfield in my constituency will be given

full weight when the decisions are finally reached?

Mr. Willey: I assure my hon. Friend that the criteria he has mentioned will certainly be given due weight.

Statutory Undertakings (Gasholders)

Mr. Neave: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will introduce legislation requiring statutory undertakings, such as the Southern Gas Board, to obtain planning consent before erecting gasholders or other buildings on land owned by them.

Mr. Greenwood: Statutory undertakers are already required to obtain planning permission before erecting gasholders or other high plant or buildings, except where authority has already been given by Parliament in a private Act or Order or the responsible Minister has directed that planning permission has been deemed to be given.

Mr. Neave: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the present position in regard to the Abingdon Gas Order, 1935, gives a wholly unfair discrimination in favour of public undertakings compared with private citizens who require planning permission? In view of the large number of gasholders which it is intended to erect in the country, will the right hon. Gentleman amend the law very urgently?

Mr. Greenwood: As the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, I have confirmed an Article 4 direction, for which the local planning authority had asked, but as this may become the subject of a public appeal, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will excuse me if I do not comment on this case.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: As this is not a unique occurrence and as other cases of gas holders being sought to be erected under these powers are likely to arise, would the right hon. Gentleman say that, in the event of any other local planning authority asking for an Article 4 direction to the same effect, he will also accede to those requests?

Mr. Greenwood: I had better not commit myself in advance. This state of affairs has obtained for a number of years and it has generally speaking worked well


Since the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) was Minister of Housing and Local Government, there has been a great deal of consultation between the statutory undertakers and the local planning authorities, but I realise that there are doubts as to whether the present method of resolving conflicts is the right one; and we are studying the position at the moment.

EUROPEAN TECHNOLOGICAL COLLABORATION

Dr. David Owen: asked the Prime Minister whether, irrespective of joining the European Economic Community, he will start taking the necessary steps to reduce the fiscal and legal obstacles to European technological collaboration.

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. George Brown): For reasons which, I am sure, the House will understand and respect, I have been asked to reply.
The Government have for some time been concerned to reduce all possible obstacles to technological collaboration. But if my hon. Friend has any particular points in mind, perhaps he would let my right hon. Friend know of them.

Dr. Owen: Would my right hon. Friend consider taking a firm decision to introduce a value added tax before 1970 and thus comply with the remaining other six countries in the E.E.C.?

Mr. Brown: This is a subject which, of course, we have under consideration.

Lord Balniel: If the Foreign Secretary has this under consideration, why did he introduce the ridiculous Selective Employment Tax and not the value added tax which the Community will have harmonised upon by January, 1970?

Mr. Brown: The only thing I ever find ridiculous about the noble Lord is the remarks he makes.

CIVIL SERVICE (PERSONNEL AND STAFF FUNCTIONS)

Mr. Moonman: asked the Prime Minister if he will centralise the personnel and staff functions in the Civil Service so that this work might be tackled more effectively and in keeping with modern personnel management practice.

Mr. George Brown: I have been asked to reply.
The general management of the Civil Service is already centralised. Each Minister is responsible for the staffing of his own Department, however, and practical efficiency also requires some personnel work to be done within each Department. It would be premature to consider any changes in this field before the Fulton Committee reports.

Mr. Moonman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in industry effective use of personnel skills usually arises when a specialist executive is placed on the board? Would not he consider the establishment of a separate Department concerning itself with personnel skills and having a separate Minister answerable here?

Mr. Brown: Having myself served for a very long period of years in one capacity or another in a large number of Departments, I believe that what my hon. Friend is suggesting is the wrong analogy. In fact, I think that these personnel matters are better handled in each Department, remembering that each one is itself a very large organisation.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that most of industry is now trying to reduce its office staff and workers generally in order to try to help the economy? Would not he agree that the Government should follow suit and reduce the number of civil servants throughout the country?

Mr. Brown: Yes, Sir, but it should be remembered that the number of staff any organisation employs—whether it is a private or public enterprise—must, of course, be related to policies—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—and since we are always being pressed by hon. Gentlemen opposite to do more in various spheres, it must be accepted that we require more people to carry out these tasks. I believe that at the end of the day we shall be judged—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—not so much by the number of people we employ but by the results of our policies; and by the time of the next General Election we will be perfectly willing to be so judged.

Mr. Barnett: Would not the country have saved many millions of £s if we had had more civil servants in the Ministry of Civil Aviation?

EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY

Mr. Marquand: asked the Prime Minister whether he will arrange for the publication of a White Paper assessing the implications which membership of the European Economic Community would have for British policy in the fields of public ownership and economic planning.

Mr. George Brown: I have been asked to reply.
I have, as yet, nothing to add to the Answer given by my right hon. Friend to a supplementary question by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition on 20th April.—[Vol. 745, c. 802.]

Mr. Marquand: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if we want to create a Socialist Europe, as I am sure he does—[Interruption.]—in which public ownership and economic planning play a major rôle, it is very important that our E.F.T.A. partners join with us? Can he say what consultations he is having with E.F.T.A. with this aim in view?

Mr. Brown: The Opposition are behaving as though we were already at 9.30 in the evening—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that we will get on to the answer about Europe. Mr. Brown.

Mr. Brown: We have proposed to our colleagues on the E.F.T.A. Ministerial Council that a meeting should take place in London on Friday, 28th April, so that we can continue the process of consultation with them. The meeting will be a normal Ministerial Council meeting, and will therefore be under the chairmanship of our friend, Mr. Gunnar Lange, the Swedish Minister of Commerce, who is the Chairman of the Council. This meeting will give us an opportunity to consult them fully.

Mr. Maudling: Arising out of the question asked by the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Marquand), does the Foreign Secretary recall that on 7th June, 1962, the Prime Minister said that the whole conception of the Treaty of Rome was anti-planning? What has changed since then?

Mr. Brown: The answer is the way in which the Common Market itself has developed.

Mr. Urwin: asked the Prime Minister on what principles any application for British entry into the European Economic Community will be based.

Mr. Moyle: asked the Prime Minister whether, in the event of the Government deciding that Great Britain should apply to join the European Common Market, he will stipulate the conditions upon the fulfilment of which the Government would recommend accession to the Common Market.

Mr. Leadbitter: asked the Prime Minister on what principles and conditions he would now consider it appropriate to base an application to join the Common Market.

Mr. Pavitt: asked the Prime Minister what stipulations he will now make before deciding to make a formal application to join the European Common Market.

Mr. Orme: asked the Prime Minister if he will state the conditions on which Her Majesty's Government would now consider making an application to join the Common Market.

Mr. George Brown: I have been asked to reply.
I would refer my hon. Friends to the Answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 23rd March to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris).—[Vol. 743, c. 333.]

Mr. Urwin: I thank my right hon. Friend for his Answer, but is he aware that it is the opinion of many people in the country that the Government are embarking on a somewhat enigmatic course in relation to integration into Europe? Is he further aware that such a course does not by any means command the complete and universal approbation of people in the country or in the House—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must protect other hon. Members. That is enough, I think.

Mr. Urwin: Excuse me, Mr. Speaker—I have not finished my supplementary question.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I was delicately conveying to the hon. Gentleman that he had asked enough. Mr. Brown—to answer.

Mr. Brown: I do not agree with the remark about an enigmatic course. The point is that the Government, as my hon. Friend well knows, are now deciding the terms, the basis, on which we might make an application for membership, and considering whether some other course might be preferable. As soon as we have an announcement to make, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will make it to the House.

Mr. Moyle: But in the event of there being any British application to join the Common Market would not my right hon. Friend agree that it would be better for him to negotiate the democratic control of the institutions of the Common Market before we agree to enter, and as part of any price which this country may agree to pay for entering the European Economic Community?

Mr. Brown: I will certainly take into account what my hon. Friend has said, hut, speaking for myself, I doubt whether that is the right way to approach the matter.

Sir C. Osborne: Have we a 50–50 chance of getting in?

Mr. Brown: I have taken many a bet on worse terms than that.

Mr. Pavitt: In these various conditions that my right hon. Friend has given to the House from time to time, will he bear in mind the need to preserve the right of the National Health Service to be financed to an extent of more than 4 per cent. of the gross national product?

Mr. Brown: I have no reason for thinking that either the terms of the Treaty of Rome or anything I have learned on our tour round Europe would interfere with that position.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: There is one rather obscure point in the Prime Minister's Answer, to which the right hon. Gentleman refers. Is it proposed that there should be a statement and then a debate, or are we to have a statement, a White Paper and then a debate?

Mr. Brown: My right hon. Friend said that we were considering the issue of the

fullest possible information to the House and whether we could do it best in a White Paper. We are considering that, and we will, in fact, consult what we believe to be the wishes of the House. The intention in this matter will be to give the House all the information we can, and to give it an opportunity for a full debate and a decision on the matter.

Mr. Orme: Will my right hon. Friend tell the House whether the conditions about an independent foreign policy, public ownership and protection of the Commonwealth are still being considered by the Government? What conditions have changed since 1962 now to make it possible for the Government to make such an application?

Mr. Brown: Obviously, consideration of the problems of our Commonwealth partners must be one of the things uppermost in our minds in any negotiations which we may undertake. I find it hard to deduce that members of the Six have in fact found it difficult to carry out an independent foreign policy. I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the fact that members of the Six have quite a large amount of their economy under public ownership.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: A moment or two ago, in answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling), the right hon. Gentleman stated, or implied, that the actual operation of the Community in some respects differed from the provisions of the Treaty of Rome. If he means that, will he be good enough to see that the difference is put in any White Paper which is published, so that the House can bring an informed judgment to bear upon these matters?

Mr. Brown: I neither implied that, nor meant that. What I said—and I will stand on it and put it in any kind of paper the right hon. and learned Gentleman likes—was that the way in which the Community had developed in practice was a good deal different from the way in which some of the federalist advocates some years ago prophesied that it would develop.

Mr. Bellenger: In view of the numerous Questions on this subject which are appearing on the Order Paper, may I ask whether the statement of my right


hon. Friend the Prime Minister which was made upstairs will be made available to the whole House very shortly?

Mr. Brown: The whole House has before it the very excellent statement which I made upstairs. In view of the tremendous welcome with which it has been received, I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend will consider doing the same thing.

Mr. Sandys: Is it not a fact that the Gallup polls show that there is a wider measure of agreement on this question than on almost any other big controversial issue of the day?

Mr. Brown: How far one takes the polsters into account is a matter of judgment. On the whole, I take them into account when they are on my side and disregard when they are not. This is a matter for us in the House to argue out as well as we can on its merits. My own views are obviously well known. The Government collectively will make their views known to the House fairly soon now, and it will then be for the House to argue it out, and I do not think that we should be deflected too much by what polsters or other people may think.

Mr. John Lee: As one certain outcome of our joining the E.E.C. would be an increase in the cost of living, does not my right hon. Friend agree that this will make the task of the enforcement of the incomes policy that much more difficult than it is at the moment?

Mr. Brown: There are bound to be pluses and minuses if we decide to go in. I ask my hon. Friend to take into account against the minuses the undeniable pluses, so that we make a balanced decision.

Mr. Jennings: May we take it from a previous answer of the right hon. Gentleman that before a decision to apply for entry is made there will definitely be a vote in the House? If so, will it be a free vote?

Mr. Brown: It is not for me to say whether there will be a vote. I cannot answer for hon. Members opposite. I do not know how free their votes are. What I can seriously assure the House is that, when the Government have decided, they will come and tell the House and the sub-

sequent action in the House will be for the House to decide.

Mr. Dickens: Following that reply, may we now take it that there will then be a comprehensive White Paper setting out the fullest political and economic considerations in this matter, prior to a debate in the House and prior to an application for entry?

Mr. Brown: We are considering what kind of information we might provide for the House and in what form, and I will take note of what my hon. Friend has said.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Are the Government now prepared, if necessary, to give a special relationship with the Europeans priority over a special relationship with the Americans?

Mr. Brown: May I make it quite plain to begin with that of course we are Europeans and have been for a very long time. The issue is not whether we are to join Europe. We have been there since the beginning of history. In the consideration of this question many other relationships have to be and are being taken into account.

DISARMAMENT (QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS)

Mr. Pavitt: asked the Prime Minister if he will now appoint a Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Disarmament to enable Questions to be answered in this House.

Mr. George Brown: I have been asked to reply.
I already answer Questions on disarmament in this House, Sir, and see no need to ask my right hon. Friend for further assistance.

Mr. Pavitt: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the intense interest of many hon. Members in universal disarmament; and that the absorption into both foreign affairs and defence does not always satisfy us? Is he aware that we would like to see the excellent initiative of appointing a separate Minister for Disarmament and for the United Nations followed up by more interest in the House in the subject?

Mr. Brown: I am very much in favour of more interest being taken in the House in the matter. My noble Friend is willing to make himself available to any forum in the House for wider discussion of his work, and I will myself be very willing to answer any questions hon. and right hon. Gentlemen wish to put to me on the subject.

Mr. A. Royle: But in view of the promise made during the 1964 General Election that the Government would take the initiative in disarmament, and the failure of Lord Chalfont to take any initiative whatsoever, will the Foreign Secretary now tell the House what plans Her Majesty's Government have to take the initiative in this important field?

Mr. Brown: The whole premise of that question was contained in the second part of that supplementary question and was completely false, so I do not have to answer the first part.

Oral Answers to Questions — LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (SPEECH)

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Prime Minister whether the speech of the Lord President of the Council at Haringey on 13th March about the treatment of council tenants represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. George Brown: I have been asked to reply.
If the right hon. Gentleman is referring to the speech my right hon. Friend actually made, rather than the one he was misreported as having made, the answer is "Yes, Sir".

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Does that Answer cover the correction hastily issued after the Foreign Secretary's right hon. Friend's speech, in which he urged that council tenants should be given the opportunity to buy their houses on mortgage? If that is so, will the Government now withdraw the stop on the issue of local authority mortgages which now affects certain boroughs, and so enable people to buy houses on mortgage, even if, unhappily, it has to be at 7 per cent. rather than at 3 per cent.?

Mr. Brown: No correction was hastily issued. I have the advantage of having letters from people who were actually in

the audience at the meeting, expressing their disgust at the reports made of what my right hon. Friend said. As to the second part of the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, there is no difficulty at the moment—quite the contrary, in fact—in people getting mortgages to buy houses.

Mr. Maxwell: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that it would have been better for the Government to have taken steps not to require local councils to increase their rents, having regard to the freeze on wages; and that the rent increases for council house tenants are unfair?

Mr. Brown: That seems to me to be a totally different question from that which I am answering at the moment.

Mr. Maudling: As the Labour Party's statement used the words
…as a result of the Government's 100 per cent. mortgage policy…
can the right hon. Gentleman say when that policy will be brought into effect?

Mr. Brown: We shall bring it into effect, like all our other good things, as soon as possible.

NEW ROYAL MINT (LOCATION)

The following Questions stood upon the Order Paper:

Sir KNOX CUNNINGHAM: TO ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will give consideration to a site for the new Mint in Ulster before reaching a final decision upon where it is to be set up.

Mr. LUARD: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will now make a statement on the future location of the Royal Mint.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. James Callaghan): With permission, I will now answer Questions Nos. 133 and 135 together.
It is 12 years since the rebuilding of the Mint was announced. Since then output has trebled mainly for export, and capacity for minting the decimal coinage is now also required. The existing site cannot be developed economically for these purposes, and in accordance with


the Government's dispersal policy a number of new sites have been examined in the development areas.
In the light of this examination the Government have decided that a new Royal Mint should be built at Llantrisant, in South Wales. Its first task will be to produce the new decimal coinage and a work force of about 400 to 500 will be recruited mainly from the surrounding areas. These workers will continue to be needed when the Royal Mint itself moves to Llantrisant, which will be by 1973 at the latest.

Sir Knox Cunningham: Is the Chancellor aware that the unemployment rate in Northern Ireland has risen to 9 per cent., due to his economic policies? Since he is not to site the Mint there, what other action is he to take to reduce this quite unacceptable level of unemployment?

Mr. Callaghan: Although many sites were examined, it would not have been regarded as economic to transfer coinage to and fro across the Irish Channel. The general policy was debated yesterday. There are many Government measures—and this is a further one—which are having and will have a considerable impact on the development areas.

Mr. Luard: I regret that the Chancellor has not thought the royal City of Oxford a suitable site for the Royal Mint. However, is he aware that there will be general satisfaction that he has decided to site this important institution in an area of high unemployment, a development area, such as South Wales? I hope that this is the forerunner of many other decisions to site more Government institutions outside London.

Mr. Callaghan: I am obliged to my hon. Friend. It is the Government's policy wherever possible to disperse Government work in this way. This decision has been taken at a time when we are pressing this policy on private employers and it would obviously not have been right for the Government to be exempt from the same pressures.

Mr. Lubbock: I approve the Government's decision to transfer the Royal Mint to another area. However, is not this the second public Department to be moved to South Wales in recent months? In

taking the decision, did not the right hon. Gentleman consider siting the new Royal Mint plant in Scotland, instead of South Wales? What capital expenditure is expected, particularly on decimal currency, and how does the proposed opening date of 1973 fit the introduction of decimal currency in February, 1971?

Mr. Callaghan: The new Mint will be coping with decimal currency and I hope that that will be brought into operation by the end of 1968. The decimal currency will mount up there, and the functions of the Royal Mint will then be transferred after decimalisation by 1972, or, by the latest, 1973.
Many sites were looked at, but the Cabinet took this decision, on balance, on all the factors involved. To enumerate some—because it is important that these matters should be taken into account—they included accessibility to the existing Mint, the need to transfer coinage easily to the main centres of population, the views of the management, the reactions of the staff, the reports of the consultants, the suitability of the site. All these were factors which the Government as a whole took into account in reaching their decision.

Mr. Arthur Pearson: Does my right hon. Friend realise that his statement will gladden the hearts of the people in an area where, through rapid economic change, the deepest unemployment shadows lie and that their gratitude goes to those who, by their judgment and influence, have made possible this new siting of the Royal Mint? Will my right hon. Friend—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Much as I respect the hon. Gentleman, questions must be brief.

Mr. Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will be brief.
Will my right hon. Friend say what measures are being taken to train the new personnel required? Will the Royal Air Force Station at St. Athan, where there are excellent facilities for this purpose, be used?

Mr. Callaghan: It is proposed to acquire training facilities. This morning I asked the workpeople at the Royal Mint—I think that the House would not object to my seeing the staff there this


morning before I informed the House—for their full co-operation in the matter of training.
I must tell the House—I told the shop stewards and trade union officials and the staff side that I would say this—that the staff do not wish to move. The staff feel that their lives are being torn up by the roots. I think that this is a factor which must be taken into account, and I undertook to tell the House this.
I have tried to explain the basis of what I think is inter-party policy on the matter of dispersal. I have asked for the full co-operation of the staff in making the transfer a success. I fully believe that when the staff have reflected on the matter they will offer full cooperation in making training a success.

Mr. Iain Macleod: Could the Chancellor help the House with one point about staffing? He said that 400 to 500 people would be recruited locally. Quite apart from that, how many will move to the new area?

Mr. Callaghan: Initially, I should think that about 50 volunteers will be required out of the existing Royal Mint strength of 1,300. By 1973, about 20 percent. of the present staff of the Mint will have retired and, therefore, it will be possible to make up the new total at Llantrisant out of the 400 to 500 recruits who will be coming in.

Mr. W. Baxter: Is not this decision of the Government's a disgraceful one? If it is not a breach of the Act of Union, it is a breach of expectations, at the time of the Act of Union, that the Mint would remain in Scotland? As the town of Stirling is the source of the word "sterling" and as the original doorway of the Mint still exists in Stirling, I see no reason why this decision should have been made in the manner in which it has been made. The Mint should be in Scotland. There is no dubiety about that.

Mr. Callaghan: I would not wish to be a party to undoing the Act of Union. I have too great a respect for my Scottish colleagues for that. I am sure that my hon. Friend will not focus on this as the only example of decentralisation and dispersal or of taking new work to Scotland. I was delighted to read in the Scottish Press this morning of plans that

one very great firm has for expansion on the East coast of Scotland. There will be many more.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Does the Chancellor realise that this decision, following upon the location of the Motor Vehicle Registration Office in Cardiff, of the Steel Corporation in London, of the Computer Centre in Manchester, and of the Forestry Commission in Basingstoke, is making many of us on this side wonder whether there is a Secretary of State for Scotland in the Cabinet at all?

Mr. Callaghan: I do not carry the figure in my head, but I believe I am right in saying that over the last five years about £115 million has been made available to Scotland in relation to the provision of new jobs. This is going on at a very fast rate. The case for Scotland is very well put by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, continuously and regularly. I am sure that my right hon. Friend does not have any difficulty in facing the hon. Gentleman over it.

Mr. James Griffiths: In reply to an earlier supplementary, my right hon. Friend mentioned the concern of the staff about the transfer. Will he bear in mind that 20 years ago it fell to me, a Welshman, to establish the central office of the Ministry of National Insurance on Tyneside. At that time there was concern amongst the staff about moving from London to Tyneside. Since then many have told me that they are very glad they went. Will my right hon. Friend assure the staff of the Royal Mint that they will have a very warm-hearted welcome when they come to Wales?

Mr. Callaghan: I will certainly convey that sentiment to the staff, although I have already been able to do so from my personal knowledge. What my right hon. Friend said about the Ministry of National Insurance—I hope that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) is listening to this—demonstrates that these decisions must be made on the overall merits of the case and on the balance of the argument as it arises.

Dame Irene Ward: What has happened to the North-East Coast? No one has mentioned it. Can we have a Secretary


of State for the North-East Coast to put our point of view?

Mr. Callaghan: Alas, there are 630 Members but only one Mint.

Mr. Urwin: Although I am sure that my colleagues representing the Northern Region will join me in congratulating Wales on having secured this plum, I must draw attention to the claims of the Northern Region in such matters as this. With unemployment figures similar to those obtaining in Wales and Scotland, we feel that we have been very considerably left out in the decentralisation of Government Departments. I hope that my right hon. Friend will bear very strongly and seriously in mind the claims of the Northern Region when any future decentralisation takes place.

Mr. Callaghan: Yes. While thanking my hon. Friend for the generous way in which he put what he said, I must assure him that a great many sites were considered. No area was excluded. More than 20 sites were separately considered. The decision was clearly a difficult one, because a good case can be made out for a great many areas. It was the Cabinet's job to take a decision on what it regarded as being the balance in this case. When there are future dispersals—I trust that there will be in due course—the merits of those cases will have to be looked at, also.

Mr. Tapsell: If I may put aside constituency considerations for a moment in what is essentially a national question, may I ask the Chancellor whether he will bear in mind that some of us, on reflection, may feel that a great national institution such as the Royal Mint really ought to remain in the capital city—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Even if the Cabinet refuses to accept that point of view, will the right hon. Gentleman at least ensure that what may be described as the showcase element of the Royal Mint remains in London?

Mr. Callaghan: I do not think that there is universal agreement, from what I can make out, with the proposition that the hon. Gentleman has advanced. I do not think that it is essential that the manufacture of coins should be carried out in London. There are, after all, two other capital cities, namely, Cardiff and Edin-

burgh. Both of them, I have no doubt, would feel that they had claims to this institution.
As to its being a showcase, the Royal Mint gets a good many visitors and it will be delighted to receive them still. However, the staff are there to do a job of work. That is the main purpose. I have already had discussions with the Deputy Master. I want to see a Mint erected which is something of which we can all be proud. I hope that it will be of good architectural design. I do not think that it should be regarded as just another factory. I think that we ought to erect a building which the House will approve of, even if not unanimously.

Mr. Wilkins: If the House is now entering upon a Dutch auction in bidding for the siting of a new Royal Mint, may I ask the Chancellor whether he has considered the claims of South-West England, and particularly North Devon?

Mr. Callaghan: I can only repeat what I have said. We were guided by the advice of consultants, who had a free hand in looking at any site they wished to consider within a wide region. They came up with certain proposals, and out of those proposals the Cabinet had to make an invidious choice.

Sir G. Nabarro: The Government have selected South Wales, where unemployment is 4·1 per cent., compared with Scotland, where is is 3·9 per cent. or the North-East, where it is 3·9 per cent., but is not the real reason their knowledge that the run-down in the coal-mining industry will be far greater in South Wales than in any other mining area of Britain?

Mr. Callaghan: I have already indicated the considerations which led the Cabinet to take the decision they did. Clearly, the original proposal to send the Mint to a development area was related to employment prospects, but it would be wrong to assume that the decision was taken wholly on the question of the future of the coal industry.

Mr. Woodburn: As a Member for both the Stirling and Dollar areas, may I assure my right hon. Friend that we shall be satisfied that the money should be made in Wales if, when it is produced, more of it is directed to the development areas?

Mr. Callaghan: I shall bear that in mind.

Sir J. Langford-Holt: Where will the Master of the Mint take up his duties?

Mr. Callaghan: The present Master took up his duties two and a half years ago, and he is due for trial on 4th May to see whether the coinage is still pure and perfect. I am awaiting the verdict with some anxiety.

Mr. Spriggs: Will my right hon. Friend inform the Government of Northern Ireland that no further assistance will be given to them until they stop all forms of discrimination and—

Mr. Speaker: Order. These are Questions about the Mint.

Sir C. Osborne: What will happen to the new Mint when Wales gets its independence?

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I know that many hon. Members wish to ask questions about the Mint, but I must protect the business of the House.

Sir Knox Cunningham: Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter again at an early date.

Mr. Orme: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask for your guidance? Why was the question from my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens (Mr. Spriggs) ruled out of order, as one of the original Questions had been asked by the hon. and learned Member for Antrim, South (Sir Knox Cunningham)?

Mr. Speaker: The fact that the original Question was asked by an hon. Member from Northern Ireland does not mean that all the political affairs of Northern Ireland can be discussed on a Question about the Mint. That is how it seems to me, anyhow.

Orders of the Day — WATER (SCOTLAND) BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Mr. Speaker: The House will find an additional Notice Paper relating to the Bill setting out a new Amendment handed in yesterday by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond). It is Amendment No. 74. I have selected this Amendment to be debated with the right hon. Gentleman's earlier Amendment No. 36.

New Clause No. 1.—(DISPOSAL OF ASSETS DUE TO BE TRANSFERRED.)

Where, on or after 1st January 1967, the authority has disposed of any property which would, but for that disposal, have been transferred to the board on the second appointed day, and the liabilities which are so transferred have not been reduced by an amount equal to the full market value of that property as at the date of its disposal, then, unless either the board or the Secretary of State determine otherwise, that authority shall indemnify the board accordingly; and in this section any reference to the disposal of property includes, in the case of a local water authority being a local authority, a reference to the transfer of property from the local authority in their capacity as a local water authority to themselves in any other capacity.—[Dr. Dickson Mahon.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

3.55 p.m.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Dr. J. Dickson Mabon): I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
This new Clause arises from an undertaking which I gave in Committee, on behalf of my right hon. Friend, to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Buchanan). Both hon. Members had tabled separate Amendments designed to restrict a local water authority from disposing of any of its assets or renouncing any of its rights, and I was deeply obliged to them for the discussion which we then had.
I accepted that we should have to do something like this at a later stage of the Bill, and I pointed out that any change which we made, such as the one provided for in the new Clause, would be futile if it did not have retrospective effect. A similar retrospective provision is common in


the regrouping arrangements in England. There was no dispute in Committee either about the wisdom of such a Clause or about the need for retrospection. Accordingly, I commend it to the House.

Mr. Anthony Stodart: I thank the hon. Gentleman for remedying what we regarded as a deficiency. I think that what he has said meets the situation to which we drew attention.

Mr. Ian MacArthur: We are much obliged to the Minister of State for putting down this new Clause. There might be an argument about whether 1st January, 1967, is the appropriate date, but I think that that would be a rather trivial argument to raise. We accept that this is one of those rare occasions when an element of apparent retrospection is justifiable, yet this is not, in effect, retrospection.
The Government's intentions are well known. The Bill was published—I forget the exact date—on or about 10th January. The local authorities knew well in advance of consideration of its principle in Committee what the Government's intentions were. They knew, also, that the Opposition supported the Bill's general terms and the Government's intent, which followed the intent of the Conservative Government when in office.
I was agreeably surprised by the hon. Gentleman's tribute to the Opposition. I remember that he congratulated us in Committee on spotting what might otherwise be a weakness in the Bill, but I rember also that he said that we had, perhaps, stumbled on this weakness. I told him then, and I repeat now, that it was not a matter of stumbling on weaknesses. My hon. and right hon. Friends and I study these matters with the greatest possible care—

Mr. Archie Manuel: Oh.

Mr. MacArthur: —and we saw long in advance that there was here a possible weakness which should be remedied. Even if it does not satisfy the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire, I am sure that it satisfies the Minister to know that we attend to our duties seriously.
It was a serious point which we raised in Committee, and the Minister of State undertook to consider it favourably. I know that I speak for my right hon. and hon. Friends in thanking him for putting down the new Clause, which we are glad to support.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.

New Clause No. 2.—(TRANSFER OF OFFICERS AND SERVANTS.)

(1) Where all the functions of the authority have been transferred to one board, that board shall take over and employ, as from the second appointed day, any person, who immediately before that day was employed by the authority solely in connection with those functions, where that person is willing to enter the employment of the board on terms and conditions which, so far as practicable, are not less favourable than those on which he was employed by the authority immediately before that day.

(2) Where the functions of the authority have been transferred to more than one board, any person employed by the authority solely in connection with the functions transferred to one of those boards immediately before the second appointed day shall be taken over and employed by that board where that person is willing to enter the employment of that board on such terms and conditions as aforesaid.—[Dr. Dickson Mabon.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: It is suggested that with this new Clause we discuss Amendment No. 26, in Clause 19, page 11, to leave out from the beginning of line 44 to the end of line 7 on page 12.

Dr. Mabon: I am obliged to you, Mr. Speaker, for bringing in the reference to Amendment No. 26, which is consequential on the new Clause.
In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Archie Manuel), who also studies these matters with avidity and spots deficiencies here and there with the same determination as others—

Mr. MacArthur: Not so well as we do.

Dr. Mahon: This matter has been impressed upon us by relatively few people compared with the previous one, which was impressed upon us by, among others, the British Waterworks Association. But let us not go over that.
My hon. Friend pursued me in Committee on the subject of Clause 19 and the Amendments which he sought to insert with reference to making it mandatory on all authorities to offer continuing employment to employees engaged in the water service at the date of transfer, that is, making it mandatory that they should be offered jobs. I explained the difficulties which I envisaged —I think that I gave four categories which I could think of right away as presenting difficulty—but, under pressure from my hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Doig), I accepted that, if I had a difficult choice here, I would commend to the Secretary of State the view that it should, on balance, be mandatory rather than permissive.
4.0 p.m.
The Clause deals with a restricted number of people. We estimate that about 3,800 are involved and that the Clause will cover about 75 per cent. of that number. In other words, following consultations with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, I have been able to get as near as is possible to what was sought, considering all the difficulties concerning part-time employees.
If Clause 19 were completely mandatory, its effect would be that the people concerned need be given a job only so long as was necessary to work out the period of notice to which they were entitled. Since the boards will be in existence well before the second appointed day, they could, if so minded, give advance notice to those whom they did not wish to employ, in which case those employees would qualify for compensation under the Bill as drafted. The best arrangement, which I am suggesting to the House, seemed to be to make the Clause mandatory in relation to whole-time employees whose duties are wholly transferred to one board, even though the functions of the local water authority have been divided between more than one board.
For the remainder, by virtue of paragraph 21 of Schedule 4, the boards will be able to take over anyone employed partly on water duties. From informal soundings we have made through the Department, we are confident that there should be jobs for all professional staff,

including operational maintenance staff who want to transfer. I assure the House that we feel from the assessment we have made that, if anything, we are short of key personnel, and will need everyone available who wants to take up work in this way.
For those who cannot or will not transfer, because they share their part-time water duties with another job and prefer to stay in it rather than be part-time in this capacity, any loss of employment or diminution or loss of emoluments will be subject to the compensation provisions of Clause 22.
We state in subsection (1) of the new Clause that the take-over of an employee shall be on
…terms and conditions which, so far as practicable, are not less favourable…
than those on which he was previously employed. That limitation is needed to cover the case of the water engineer who is the chief professional officer of a water authority, but who, after the transfer, finds himself as the deputy in the new regional board. I thought that I should say that in case hon. Members read into those words something sinister which is not there.
This is the best I have been able to do and I hope that my hon. Friends the Members for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) and Dundee, West (Mr. Doig) are content that we have tried as far as we can to meet their case. The House would want to see us doing this kind of action if we can, and I hope that the whole House can endorse it.

Mr. J. Bruce-Gardyne: Can the Minister confirm that snaking the requirement on the new board mandatory by the new Clause will in no way affect compensation which employees of existing water authorities might obtain under the Redundancy Payments Act? I take it that if individual employees decide that they do not want to carry on in employment with the new water authorities, the fact that the obligation is made mandatory by the new Clause on the new regional boards would not in any way affect the rights of employees who wish to terminate their employment under that Act. I should like that assurance, and I am sure that the Minister can give it.
The second point that worried me slightly was that the Minister indicated


that as far as the Government could see the existing employees should be taken over by the new regional boards and seemed to infer that there would be a need for additional recruitment. I always find it slightly alarming to hear that reorganisation involves an increase in the number of officials required. Is the Minister really saying that, and can he give any indication of how extensive that new employment might be?

Mr. Manuel: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister of State on trying to meet the point I made in Committee, aided very strongly by my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Doig). I wish just to ask him about subsection (2) of the new Clause, which states:
Where the functions of the authority have been transferred to more than one board, any person employed by the authority solely in connection with the functions transferred to one of those boards immediately before the second appointed day shall be taken over and employed by that board where that person is willing to enter the employment of that board on such terms and conditions as aforesaid.
Does that cover the employee who, for three-quarters of his time was previously employed solely on water functions by a water board and for one-quarter of the time by a local authority on another duty? If, as my hon. Friend suggested, there will be a shortage of workers, it would appear that all those part-time workers would be offered employment, and if that is so he should say so.
I hope that the Minister can give an answer so that those people who wrote to me and who will be watching our proceedings here very carefully, because of their interest in the staff in Ayrshire and elsewhere, will feel that we have got the point which we tried to get in Committee.

Mr. Peter Doig: I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Minister of State has met the point we made and protected the interests of the employees concerned. However, I am a little puzzled by the attitude of the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne), who appears to be saying that he wants someone who is merely to transfer from one employer to another, but continuing the same job, to get a redundancy payment if he does not want to take that transfer.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: No.

Mr. Doig: That was the way the hon. Gentleman framed his question. He appears to want any person who will be entitled to carry on with the same job at the same remuneration and with the same prospects to get a redundancy payment. If he is arguing that, it is wrong to do so, and I should not think that the Redundancy Payments Act can be stretched to that extent. If it can, it is time its provisions were changed.

Mr. MacArthur: We had a very good debate in Committee about this matter of principle. My hon. Friends and I very much supported the view put forward by the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel), and I am very glad that the major principle then advanced has been accepted in the new Clause.
I am not surprised that the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Doig) has some disagreements with my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) from time to time. During consideration of this Bill and of others, the hon. Member for Dundee, West has somehow managed to get the wrong end of the stick. I say that with the greatest respect and greatest tribute to his knowledge of these matters. This is yet another occasion when he has not quite succeeded in following my hon. Friend's argument.
However, I am sure that the hon. Member will agree with me that this is as reasonable a proposal as one could expect to meet the very real problems that will confront the full-time professional employee, who might be faced with redundancy unless he had some certainty of employment with the new body, which, after all, simply takes over the functions of the body that employs him at present.

Mr. Doig: Will the hon. Member kindly explain what he thinks his hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) said if he did not say what I thought he said, because the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) appears to know what his hon. Friend said?

Mr. MacArthur: I am always glad to say what my hon. Friend says because he speaks with such lucidity, but I find it a little difficult to understand what the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Doig) is arguing.
However that may be, I urge my hon. Friends to accept the new Clause which, I think, fulfils the purpose which was advanced by the hon. Member for Central Ay-shire and other hon. Members in Committee.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: By leave of the House, I think that I had better reply to some of the points which have been made. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Doig), I did not understand what the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) said if, as he kept protesting, he did not say what my hon. Friend thought he said. I thought the hon. Member for South Angus was making a case for compensation in circumstances where the officer concerned had been offered a job. If the officer has been offered a job and has refused, clearly there can be no grounds for compensation. Redundancy payments follow only as a consequence of an inevitable redundancy where by definition no job has been offered.
If we have got this wrong perhaps the hon. Member will correct me. If he is asking for an assurance that we shall operate the compensation provisions adequately, I can give him that assurance. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Buchanan) thought that we might be defective under the 1960 provisions, but we have seen to that and the payment is only operative where a man has not been offered a job. If the hon. Member for South Angus wishes to make his position clear, I will give way.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: The case I tried to make—I apologise if I did not make it clearly—was that of an employee who is offered what the new board regards as comparable employment, but what he does not regard as comparable employment and he is not prepared to accept as comparable employment and, therefore, he goes out. All I am concerned about is whether by putting a mandatory obligation on the new board we might be enabling it to escape obligations by an offer of a rather bogus comparable employment which it would not be able to escape if the obligation were not mandatory.

Dr. Mabon: We are coming to another Clause which makes clear that if there are disputes the Secretary of State can appoint an arbiter. This is governed by Clauses

17, 18 and 19 and new Clauses 1 and 2. I do not envisage this situation arising, but if it did the employee would, naturally, appeal through his trade union or professional association on the ground that he was being unreasonably offered a bogus job rather than one which he could accept. That is an entirely different case from the one which my hon. Friend and I assumed that the hon. Member for South Angus was raising earlier.
We accept that with the shortage of professional talent in Scotland and the need for water engineers those anxious to continue in the water service should find no difficulty in doing so. I noticed that the hon. Member referred to officials while my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire used the word "workers" rather than employees or officials who might appear to be drones. I used the phrase quite deliberately when I said that there ought to be jobs for all professional staff, including operational maintenance staff. I chose those words deliberately because these are the people we are talking about. One of the reasons for regional organisation is to make use of regional talent.
4.15 p.m.
My hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire rightly raised a point about a part-time worker doing three-quarters of his time in the water service. We are concerned about including these workers in water authorities which generally are water boards which will disappear under the Act. I hope that they would be covered in the remainder of the provisions if we agreed to Amendment No. 26. I am glad that the House appears to want to endorse this new Clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.

New Clause No. 3.—(DETERMINATION OF DISPUTES.)

Any dispute arising from the operation of the foregoing provisions of this Part of this Act shall be determined by the Secretary of State or by an arbiter appointed by him.—[Dr. Dickson Mabon.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
This Clause replaces subsection (5) of Clause 18 which, as previously drafted,


is in the opinion of the Secretary of State too narrow. It provides only for the settlement of disputes arising out of the disposition of assets and liabilities. The new Clause provides for the settlement of disputes under the foregoing provisions of the Bill, which would mean the provisions in Clauses 17, 18 and 19 and new Clauses 1 and 2. I think that the new Clause speaks for itself and I commend it to the House.

Mr. MacArthur: I do not think we need debate this matter at length, although I have a certain doubt about the propriety of the Secretary of State intervening as the decision-maker in the event of a dispute of this kind. On balance, it might be better to leave it to arbiters. The Minister of State will know that I am particularly sensitive about arbitration matters at present. We shall be returning to arbitration problems on another Bill later today. However, my doubts do not have much validity as we have allowed the previous provision to go through in Committee.
In view of that, it is reasonable for this Clause to proceed. I have a lingering suspicion about the rôle of the Secretary of State in these matters, but I think that the Clause should be added to the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.

New Clause No. 4.—(PROTECTION OF WATER MAINS.)

As from the second appointed day, no building shall be erected over any water main belonging to a water development board or a regional water board, and no cellar, or subway, or any other structure shall be made so as to interfere with any such water main, unless with the consent of that board.—[Mr. MacArthur.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. MacArthur: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
On this new Clause I have no doubt at all. It is desirable that a Clause in these terms should be added to the Bill. We had some debate in Committee about a similar new Clause which I proposed. As the Minister will have observed, I have made certain changes since then, partly to make the Clause more accep-

table to you, Mr. Speaker, and also to remove a doubt I had about the wording. I am not yet convinced that the wording which is before the House is entirely right. The principle, however, is quite clear. I know from what he said earlier that the Minister is aware of the principle we have in mind.
This matter raises a curious yet an important point. Local water authorities at present have power of access to and to maintain water mains in their possession. An authority does not have a clear statutory right, I stress the word "clear", to prevent the erection of any building above the water main in its possession, or to prevent the interference with the water main which works of other kinds might represent, subways, the laying of pipes and cables, and the like—all of which would clearly interfere with the safeguarding of the water main.
This point was very much in mind when the Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1897, was drafted. That Act lays down, in Section 114, the following provisions:
Unless with consent of the local authority, no building shall be erected over any sewer belonging to the local authority, and no vault, arch, or cellar, or subway, or other structure shall be made, and no pipes of any kind shall be laid so as interfere with any such sewer.
The reason for this Section was quite clear. The drafters wished to make it abundantly plain to any outside body that it must not interfere with sewers. I do not suggest for a moment that anyone would deliberately go out of his way to interfere with a sewer, but it is quite clear that during the course of building, or making a subway, or something of the kind, someone might, quite inadvertently, interfere with the course of a sewer. It is quite possible that someone making a subway, or constructing an arch, or laying a pipe or cable, might, inadvertently, interfere with a water main belonging to a water authority.
In Committee we on this side said that the law must be clear and precise. Surely it is right that a Measure of this kind should put the rights and duties of the citizen beyond any argument. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Buchanan) and several of his hon. Friends opposite argued that there was already adequate power within the existing statutes for water authorities not only to have access to the mains for the purpose of maintenance and the like,


but, because they had that access, to prohibit, or at least to undo, the result of building over the water main by any other party.
It was pointed out there had been a case in the English courts involving a Mr. Thane who had been so ill-advised as to build a house over a water main. Because he had made it impossible for the water authority concerned to have access to the water main, the matter was taken to the courts and resulted in a decision that Mr. Thane had to pull down his house in order to allow the water authority to have access to the water main.

Mr. William Baxter: This is an interesting case. What was the purpose of the water authority's wanting to get to the water main under the man's house?

Mr. MacArthur: The hon. Gentleman may well ask that question. I do not know. All that I do know is that if a water authority lays a main it is surely right that it should have the right of access to it for maintenance purposes and the like.
The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that under present statutes there is the power for a water authority to have constant access to the mains in its possession. All that I am claiming is that it is right that in future the law should make it absolutely clear, and citizens in the course of their normal lives should be warned, that they must be careful in what they do, so that they will not build a house over a water main without the consent of the appropriate board, or that they shall not interfere with the water mains in any way.

Mr. W. Baxter: The hon. Gentleman has spoken about a man building his house, inadvertently. He did not seem to know that there was a water main there. He builds a house over a water main, and the water authority does not require to get at a main unless there is a burst. Of course, having built over the water main, whatever damage done to get at the burst would be his responsibility. I cannot see why, if this should happen, any authority should compel a man to take his house down or to interfere with the individual.

Mr. MacArthur: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, because he and I are

at one on this point. All that I and my hon. Friends wish to do is to avoid the problem. We do not want to see a situation arising in which through a weakness in the law, a citizen, the hon. Gentleman, for example, may build a house over a water main and may then find that he has contravened the law, quite inadvertently. I say "indavertently", because as it at present stands the law provides for free access to the water mains by the authority owning and controlling the mains.
As the Bill stands, there is no provision for the prohibition of a building of this kind. I would not like to think that the hon. Gentleman, for whom I have the greatest regard and affection, might find himself in the position of the unfortunate Mr. Thane, and, having built a house, being made to pull it down, brick by brick in order to give access to the water main. The risk of this would be lessened if the law on this point were precise. It is our duty to pass precise laws, showing the citizen where his interests and duties lie.
We were told, in the most moving terms, by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Springburn, that all this was quite unnecessary, because, he suggested, although he did not say, a man would be advised by his lawyer. He would not be fool-hardy as to build a house over a water main, because his legal adviser would know that in an ancient statute provision was made for an authority to have perpetual access to the main beneath the site of the house. However we have heard of the case of Mr. Thane.

Mr. A. Woodburn: The hon. Gentleman has been telling a very interesting story. Could he now explain the point of it, so that we will know what he is wanting to do to the Bill?

Mr. MacArthur: I am sorry if the right hon. Gentleman has missed the point, perhaps he was not with us at the very early stages of our discussions in Committee. I will gladly repeat the point, several times if he wishes.
It is that the argument advanced during previous stages of the Bill was that an amendment of this kind was unnecessary, because there were powers existing to deal with the situation. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will


interrupt me if my argument is not clear. The argument was that water authorities already possess powers, giving them access to the mains in their charge. Is the right hon. Gentleman still with me?

Mr. Woodburn: Mr. Woodburn indicated assent.

Mr. MacArthur: It followed because of the canon of construction that a citizen should not be told, but should be aware that he could not build an archway or anything of the kind over a water main because of the right of access provided for in existing statutes I am not satisfied—I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is still with me—that citizens of Scotland should be required to conduct their affairs because of a canon of construction. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman's constitutents or mine would know what a canon of construction was. I doubt whether they would recognise one if they met one in the street.
Therefore, it is right that we should proceed, as the learned gentlemen who drew up the Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1897, proceeded, and introduce into the Bill a provision making it clear that no one should build over or interfere with a water main without the consent of the board operating it. That is a perfectly reasonable proposition.

Mr. George Willis: What is a canon of construction?

4.30 p.m.

Mr. MacArthur: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am not a lawyer, but as I understand it, the power of the canon of construction in this case is this. By existing Statute, water authorities have power perpetually to have access to water mains in their charge for maintenance purposes, and so on. It follows that there is a canon of construction which means that a citizen would be ill-advised to build over the water main because by so doing he would deny the power of the water authority to have access to it. In other words, by his action he would make it particularly difficult for the statute to be carried into effect.
This was the experience of the unfortunate Mr. Thane. The water authority appealed against him. The case was heard before a learned court and Mr.

Thane had to pull his house down to allow the water authority to have access to the water main.
It would be as well if the Bill were to include a provision like the one we suggest. It would not change existing law. It would merely underline the responsibility of private citizens in matters of this kind.
Citizens, guided by their solicitors and advisers, know that they need to consult local authorities on building matters. I do not believe that they will know as sharply that it is necessary for them to consult the local water authority. Yet if they do not consult the water authority they may find that they have built a house over a water main which needs attention, but which cannot be attended to because of the presence of the house. If we are to be guided by the findings of the English courts, they may have to pull their houses down so as to provide that access.
It is desirable from every point of view that the law should be precise and clear so that private citizens and their legal advisers know exactly where they stand. If it was right for this provision to be introduced into the Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1897, I see no reason why it is not right for the same provision to be introduced into the Bill.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: Would the hon. Gentleman spend some time in rebutting the arguments which my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Buchanan) used on the question, not of this being unnecessary, but of it being unwise?

Mr. MacArthur: I am glad to extend the argument for as long as the hon. Gentleman wishes. He has asked me to elaborate on two points: first, is this proposal unnecessary; and, secondly, is it unwise? I do not believe that it is unwise for the simple reason that the law in this matter, as in other matters, should be clear and precise. I believe that the Bill would be clear and precise if the new Clause were included in it or if later a provision similar to it were introduced.
Secondly, the hon. Gentleman asks whether the new Clause is necessary. In the strict and narrowest legal sense, it is unnecessary for the Clause to be included simply because of the canon of construction to which I have referred. It is


unnecessary because there is already power in existing legislation for water authorities to have access to water mains in order to carry out maintenance work.
All that I am saying is that it is not right for Parliament to expect the private citizen to have psychic observance of matters of this kind or to know that in an ancient Statute there is a requirement on them not to build over a water main. It is better for the Bill to make it clear to private citizens and their solicitors that when building houses they should have regard to the responsibilities of water authorities in the area. That is all that we ask. The new Clause is reasonable, necessary and wise and is ultimately for the protection of the private individual whom we seek to look after.
I do not think that it is fair or reasonable for right hon. and hon. Members opposite to declare, as they declared earlier, that a provision of this kind is unnecessary because the law already provides this protection. We have seen what happened in England. Mr. Thane and, I believe, another gentlemen had to pull down their houses. The hon. Member for Springburn may think it reasonable that private citizens should have to pull down their houses because they have contravened an Act of which they had no knowledge. I do not share that view. It is far better to enact legislation which makes it less likely that Mr. Thane and others like him will build their houses over water mains in the first place. That surely makes sense.
Secondly, I am not sure that it is a good idea for Scottish legislation to depend on rulings of the English courts. We are very proud in Scotland of our distinct judicial system. We are very proud of our structure of laws protected by the 1707 Act. I do not think that it is reasonable for hon. Members to suggest that the Scottish law should be governed in its interpretation by decisions of the English courts. I would much rather have the matter established once and for all in the Bill.
I hope that the Minister will accept the new Clause. If he is not able to accept its wording, I hope that he will accept the principle of it and give an undertaking that during the final stage of the Bill he will introduce a new Clause meeting the point which we have abundantly exposed.

Mr. W. Baxter: I do not know why the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) should get so upset and hot under the collar. It seems reasonable that no one would want to build a house over a sewer or water main. In fact, I think that people are prohibited from doing so by the building byelaws and the planning control exercised by local authorities.
Water mains may be 12, 14 or 18 ins. in diameter, but take a main 1 in. or 2 ins. in diameter which has been in place for some time but which is not marked on the plan of the town or village. Suppose that, inadvertently, the local authority or a private individual builds a house over it. The power will now be vested in the water authority to tell them to take it down, notwithstanding the fact that the main has not caused any trouble whatsoever. If a water authority were given the power which the hon. Gentleman suggests in his Clause, it could compel the individual or local authority to take down that house.

Mr. MacArthur: I appreciate that the lion. Gentleman was not on the Committee and, therefore, would not have been present on the two mornings which we devoted to this Amendment previously—

Mr. Willis: On that occasion, the speech of the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) was even longer.

Mr. MacArthur: I did not quite hear that interjection from the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis), but we moved the Amendment in the most modest and shortest way possible. It is a matter of fundamental principle.
The point is not that the water authority should have power to compel someone to pull down a house. I am trying to prevent such a situation arising and ensure that if anyone wished to build a house over a water main, he should first obtain the consent of the water authority and so prevent the unfortunate situation which the hon. Member for Springburn described earlier.

Mr. W. Baxter: It will add to the difficulties of a person building a house if he has to go to yet another authority. That is not a good way of trying to


streamline procedures. Anyone seeking to build a house at present has a very torturous task before him. He has to obtain planning consent, and take account or roads, building byelaws, and so forth. Now the hon. Gentleman seeks to add further to the difficulties of a developer by requiring him to go to the water authority to make sure that everything is all right from its standpoint.
I have never known of a case, but in certain circumstances it might be desirable to build a house over a water main or sewer. In such a case, a number of safeguards would be written into the agreement with the local authority which would be very helpful in the event of it being necessary to carry out any repair to a burst pipe which occurred under the building. It would be wrong of this Committee to inflict another problem on a developer by putting this Clause into the Bill.
A water authority has a duty to perform, and it would be wrong to ask it to interfere in general questions of development. The hon. Gentleman is making a mountain out of a molehill, the molehill in this case being Mr. Thane, who built his house over a water main and who, for some unknown reason, was ordered to pull it down. I cannot understand why he was asked to do it.
If there had been a burst in the water main, his house might have been flooded and he would have had no claim for compensation. The floorboards might have had to be torn up by the water authority for the purpose of repairing the water main, and in such a case I could understand it if he was held partly responsible, but I cannot understand why he should be compelled to pull down his house.
Surely this is all wrong. It is seldom that a water main bursts and it would be a million-to-one chance that it would burst under a house which inadvertently or otherwise, had been built over a 1 in. or 2 in. main. Our duty is not to add to the difficulties of building houses. We should try to make our legislation as simple as possible.
There are factors which militate against even a water authority being able to tell precisely where a water main is. I had an occasion recently in my own

business. A trench was being dug in a position which was said to be some feet from a water main. However, the men digging the trench struck the main. It is obvious that, when the line of the main was being put on the plan, it was put in some feet in the wrong direction. If, in that case, a house had been built over it, who would have been held responsible for the mistake?
I counsel the Minister to pay no heed to the Amendment which has been moved by the hon. Gentleman. We have sufficient safeguards at present, and, in my opinion, it would be foolish to add further to the difficulties of anyone who seeks to build a house. In the case of a local authority, which is different from the water authority, it may be that it is seeking to redevelop the centre of its village or town, and it may be necessary from time to time to build houses or blocks of flats over water mains. I think that it would be a bad thing to agree to this new Clause.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Richard Buchanan: Reference has been made to the cases which I mentioned in Committee. However, they took place in 1940, before the building regulations were in being as they are today. As my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. W. Baxter) has said, these matters would have been known, and precautions would have been taken at the time to ensure that the houses were not necessarily pulled down. However, they were built without notification to the planning authority and the water authority and were obviously causing damage to water mains. As a result, the court held that they should come down.
The hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) has changed his ground somewhat. In Committee, we debated the rights of water undertakings to protect their mains. I think that the House must accept that, when a statutory water undertaking lays water mains, whether on private or public land, it must be allowed access to them in order to maintain, operate and repair them. That being the case, the law consistently has supported water undertakings and given them the right to operate, maintain and repair their mains for the last 150 years. The courts have always protected


them, not only in England but in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales. The Amendment is unnecessary now that the hon. Gentleman is taking up the cudgels on behalf of the citizen who may build a house over a water main.
Under the ordinary rules of interpretation, if this Clause is put into the Bill, it throws doubt on the situation everywhere else and on the position relating to existing mains. If matters are proven by law in certain cases, the courts will say that, elsewhere, Parliament meant them to be permitted. By this Clause every situation, past present and future, will be taken to be covered, and there will be grave doubt about circumstances other than those indicated in the hon. Gentleman's Clause.
The Clause does not cover every possible situation, however, and the cure could be worse than the disease. What should be protected here is not the main itself, but access to it. Access can be impeded not merely by buildings over a main, but by buildings which have been erected in such a way that they are too close to a main. Furthermore, it is not only buildings which can affect such access, because there may be dumps of earth, rubbish, or even old cars; and there are plenty of those lying round.
I think that I have said enough to show that although the Amendment has been put forward in the interests of the water undertakers, it may redound to their disadvantage. Speaking after consulting the experts in the water industry, I do not believe that the Clause in its present form will give them any more protection than they have under the existing law, and I ask my hon. Friend to reject it.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I would like to draw the attention of the House to what the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) said in Committee, when he was kind enough to withdraw a not dissimilar clause, following an assurance which I gave about further possible developments. He said:
However, the Minister told us that he saw the strength of our argument and that he recognised that there are two sides to the question. He was good enough to say that it is his intention, I think he said next week, to discuss the principle of the new Clause with the Association of County Councils and with other bodies outside. I am glad to know that he is taking the Amendment so seriously, and, in view of the assurance that he has given

that the principle will be considered carefully in the light of informed opinion, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the new Clause."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 16th March, 1967, c. 466.]
A meeting was held and it was attended by the Association of County Councils, who are primarily concerned about this, the British Waterworks Association, and the Scottish Office. The British Waterworks Association represents a large number of bodies in Scotland as well as in England and Wales, and, I believe, in Northern Ireland, too. It therefore sees the position in a British context, and I think I tried to make that clear in some of my earlier remarks in Committee when I said that the Government must look at these matters not merely in a Scottish context, but in a British one.
The Association of County Councils is the only one of three rating local authority associations to ask us about this. The other two are content. They are the Convention of Royal Burghs, and the Association of Counties of Cities, so it cannot be presumed that the whole of Scotland is up in arms about this. This is an argument—and I admit that there is sense in it—between, on the one hand, the Association of County Councils, and, on the other, the British Waterworks Association. I tried to explain the view that, on balance, the Government felt that an Amendment such as was proposed in Committee was a mistake. First, we agreed with the opposers of the Clause that it was unnecessary, but we went further and said that in its present form it would be unwise, because the hon. Gentleman's main object—and he said it several times this afternoon—is to clarify a doubt about the law.
There is no other claim here except that of the unfortunate man whose house was pulled down. The hon. Gentleman says that he does not want this sort of thing to happen again, and that, therefore, we must clarify the law. What I do not think he has recognised—and I invited him to consider this—is what my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Springburn (Mr. Buchanan) brought out at the end of his speech, namely, that if we were to incorporate this provision into the Bill we would cast more doubt on the law than there is at the moment.
The Scottish Office was perfectly fair in listening to the arguments put forward


by both sides at the meeting. It is certain that if we were to change the law it would require a great deal of thought on our part. It would require much lengthier proposals than this. It would have to include every possibility, some of which were touched on by my hon. Friend, and even then we could not be sure that we had dealt with everything. Furthermore, in the event of doing that, I think that we would have to make it a British statute.
The English are not in this argument for the moment. They are content with the way in which the law operates in England and Wales. We have not received any representations from English local authorities asking us to make this change in a Scottish Bill so that the case will be strengthened to change the position in England and Wales.
I am sorry that the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie) is not here, because he was very helpful on this matter, even when he supported his hon. Friend, and I would like to draw attention to some of the things he said. He said, first, that
if a public authority is given statutory powers"—
he was referring to the powers with regard to sewers provided in the 1897 Public Health Act—
there are implied consequential powers to enable it to see that it can carry out its statutory duties.

Mr. MacArthur: This is the canon of construction?

Dr. Mabon: Yes, in the context, not of the Public Health Act, but of the Water Act, 1946, which means that it has power to inspect, repair, maintain, alter, renew or remove the main. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Springburn made this point.
The hon. and learned Gentleman went on to say:
Undoubtedly, if a building would prejudice the capacity or ability of the authority to exercise its statutory powers an interdict would be granted in Scotland, as in England, and if it were erected without consent there would be power for the local authority by court order to have it removed.
A little later the hon. and learned Gentleman said:
I would not be disposed to press the new Clause because in a strict legal sense it is not

necessary…".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 16th March, 1967; cc. 455–457.]
Therefore, the only argument in favour of making the change is to remove doubt. It is not that it is necessary to do so, but that it is desirable. Nobody has argued a necessitous case. What is being argued is a desirable one, but the cure, as my hon. Friend said, might be worse than the disease. The proposal is to remove a doubt, but the cure might give rise to a considerable number of additional doubts, certainly if the form of the Clause were accepted.
I never criticise new Clauses or Amendments on grounds of drafting, because I consider this to be an unfair criticism of the Opposition or of private Members. But this is not a question of drafting. It is a question of having an exhaustive list of possibilities which would be incorporated as a positive and clear provision. This has defied the Scottish Office, and the British Waterworks Association, otherwise such a provision would have been devised. It has defied the Association of County Councils, and it has defied the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire, too, because, he has now had two chances and has not come up with what could be described as a provision which would cover every possibility. I reinforce the argument put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. W. Baxter), that it is undesirable to cast more doubt on this matter when, in the present situation, all is well.
The hon. Gentleman asks us to think of Mr. Thane. He represents the classic case which has given rise to the rulings which allow water developers to proceed with sterilising development. In other words, they are able to say, "Look at this terrible case in England. Please do not, therefore, interfere with the water mains".

Mr. MacArthur: They are rulings by English courts.

Dr. Mahon: But, with respect, these rulings are observed in Scotland.
Perhaps I might quote the former Solicitor-General for Scotland, who was the sponsor of this proposition. He said that an interdict would be granted in the courts of Scotland if this provision was infringed in this way. In other words, the existence of the very thing which


is causing the hon. Gentleman concern is the reason why we are able to prevent such cases occurring in England and Wales, and on the contention of his colleague, in Scotland, too. The advice available to the Government is of the same quality, namely, that if such an interdict were sought in the Scottish courts it would be granted.
I emphasise what my hon. Friend said in concluding his argument. First, this provision is unnecessary. The hon. Gentleman has not demonstrated why it is necessary. He has not given us one example of why it is necessary, nor has the Association of County Councils.
Secondly, the Government have argued with their opponents that it would be unwise to accept the Clause because more doubts would be caused by seeking to amend the law in this manner than would be removed by doing so.
Lastly, unless we are willing to draw up a concise and exhaustive provision which can be operated in this Bill and, we assume, operated in England at the earliest opportunity, we shall not have a satisfactory situation, because it demands a British solution. No one has prescribed that, and my advice, now that we have discussed this matter with the Association of County Councils, the British Waterworks Associations and the Scottish Office, is that we should not agree to the new Clause.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. MacArthur: It is apparent from the hon. Member's argument that the Association of County Councils supports the principle of the Clause. Is that right?

Dr. Mabon: I am led to believe that the Association, by coming to the meeting, wanted a change. Whether it supports the proposition contained in the Clause I do not know; perhaps the hon. Gentleman can tell us.

Mr. MacArthur: My understanding is that the Association supports the principle. This does not surprise me. The hon. Member has argued that the Clause is strictly unnecessary. I am obliged to him for what he has said today and at previous stages, namely, that he does not expect us to be able to produce on every occasion precisely the required wording. I applaud his approach to this

matter. He is good enough to recognise that certain difficulties are involved and that new Clauses and Amendments are often put down simply to present to the House or the Committee the principle involved. In this case that principle is clear.
The hon. Member says that the Clause is unnecessary because the law is satisfactory as it stands. I am sorry that I have not yet been able to convince him or his hon. Friends that the law is not satisfactory, and that some provision is necessary to clarify it. It is all very well for him to say that we must look at the question in a British context and take account of what the English courts have ruled in English circumstances. I remind him that we are trying to pass a Scottish Bill, designed to deal with Scottish water administration in a purely Scottish context, and we are concerned with the protection of the rights of Scottish citizens. It is not reasonable to argue that the Scottish citizen and his legal advisers should have regard to the decisions of English courts in these matters.

Dr. Mabon: The hon. Gentleman must recognise that many decisions taken in Scottish courts impinge on English law. The two systems interact. For example, in the case of obscene publications, governed by an Act which applied only to England and Wales, the ruling of an English court in respect of a certain publication was endorsed by the present Lord Grant, who was then Lord Advocate. He said that no further proceedings need to be taken in Scottish courts. In practice it may be undesirable, but that is what happens.

Mr. MacArthur: I am aware of that. I believe that the case to which the hon. Member has referred sprang from a question that I put down.

Dr. Mabon: As a matter of fact, it was my Question.

Mr. MacArthur: It was the hon. Member or myself—it depends on which work of literary merit we are referring to. I believe that I referred to the first one. He may have followed with another. At least we take the same view on that question.
I maintain, however, that it is not reasonable that Scottish citizens should be bound in their actions by decisions


of the English courts. I cannot believe that we should pass a Bill dealing with a new Scottish organisation, quite different from anything in England, which does not clearly define the rights and duties of the citizen.
I realise that the Minister is not quibbling about the wording of the Clause. It may be that the wording is not quite right, but the principle is clear. It is not sufficient to say—as the Minister and the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Buchanan) are saying —that it does not matter whether or not we incorporate the Clause. Citizens in Scotland may be governed by the canon of construction, but people building houses in Scotland do not think of these things. The Minister, his advisers and the courts see these matters in a completely different light. The man in the street does not have regard to the finer points of English law in these matters. Why should he?

Mr. Donald Dewar: If the hon. Member wants Scottish courts to disregard all English precedents he is seeking to rewrite the whole practice of the Scottish Court of Session and Scottish other courts.

Mr. MacArthur: I am not suggesting that they should disregard all the findings but that the Scottish law with which we are now dealing should be clear and precise. I see no reason why it should not be.
The Minister paid a compliment to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie), who has apologised for his inability to be with us today. I support what the Minis-

ter says about my hon. and learned Friend. I must point out that in another part of the speech of my hon. and learned Friend from which the Minister has quoted, he said:
It is a well-recognised canon of construction that if a public authority is giving statutory powers there are implied consequential powers to enable it to see that it can carry out its statutory duties…it seems to me that there are arguments for some such clearly stated provision in this legislation.
The provision to which he was there referring was the Clause in its original version, as put forward in Committee.

My hon. and learned Friend continued:
One hears again and again how undesirable it is that public legislation should not be clear, how desirable it is that it should be readily understood by the public If some such provision is not made, the public will have to rely on a canon of construction of which it may not be aware."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 16th March. 1967; c. 455–7.]
Because the public may well not be aware of this canon of construction I appeal to the House to accept the new Clause, which makes the position absolutely clear, just as our predecessors agreed that in the 1897 Public Health Act a similar proposition should be agreed to. It was right then, and I believe that it is right now.

I do not insist on the precise wording, but I ask my hon. and right hon. Friends to press the Clause to a Division, because the principle involved is of fundamental importance.

Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 136, Noes 199.

Division No. 316.]
AYES
[5.08 p.m.


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Campbell, Gordon
Gibson-Watt, David


Astor, John
Carlisle, Mark
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)


Awdry, Daniel
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Goodhart, Philip


Baker, W. H. K.
Clegg, Walter
Goodhew, Victor


Balniel, Lord
Corfield, F. V.
Gower, Raymond


Batsford, Brian
Costain, A. P.
Grant, Anthony


Bell, Ronald
Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Grant-Ferris, R.


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Cunningham, Sir Knox
Gresham Cooke, R.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. &amp; Fhm)
Davidson, James(Aberdeenshire, W.)
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.


Blaker, Peter
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Gurden, Harold


Bossom, Sir Clive
Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Doughty, Charles
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.


Braine, Bernard
Drayson, G. B.
Hamilton, Marquess of (Fermanagh)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt. Col. Sir Walter
Eden, Sir John
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Harris, Reader (Heston)


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Errington, Sir Eric
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus, N&amp;M)
Eyre, Reginald
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere


Bullus, Sir Eric
Foster, Sir John
Hawkins, Paul


Burden, F. A.
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Higgins, Terence L.




Hiley, Joseph
Maginnis, John E.
Russell, Sir Ronald


Hill, J. E. B.
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Scott, Nicholas


Hirst, Geoffrey
Maude, Angus
Sharpies, Richard


Holland, Philip
Mawby, Ray
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Hooson, Emlyn
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Sinclair, Sir George


Hordern, Peter
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Smith, John


Hunt, John
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Miscampbell, Norman
Stodart, Anthony


Iremonger, T. L.
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Stoddart-Scott, Col, Sir M. (Ripon)


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
More, Jasper
Tapsell, Peter


Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)


Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Jopling, Michael
Murton, Oscar
Temple, John M.


Joseph, Rt Hn. Sir Keith
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Kimball, Marcus
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian
Walters, Dennis


Kitson, Timothy
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Ward, Dame Irene


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Webster, David


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Lloyd, Rt.Hn.Geoffrey(Sut'nC'dfield)
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
Percival, Ian
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Loveys, W. H.
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Lubbock, Erie
Prior, J. M. L.
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


McAdden, Sir Stephen
Pym, Francis
Worsley, Marcus


MacArthur, Ian
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Younger, Hn. George


Mackenzie, Alasdair(Ross&amp;Crom'ty)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas



Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. R. W. Elliott and Mr. Monro.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Faulds, Andrew
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Fernyhough, E.
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Alldritt, Walter
Finch, Harold
McBride, Neil


Allen, Scholefield
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)
MacColl, James


Anderson, Donald
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
MacDermot, Niall


Armstrong, Ernest
Floud, Bernard
McGuire, Michael


Ashley, Jack
Foley, Maurice
McKay, Mrs. Margaret


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Ford, Ben
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Forrester, John
Mackintosh, John P.


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Fowler, Gerry
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)


Barnett, Joel
Galpern, Sir Myer
MacPherson, Malcolm


Baxter, William
Garrett, W. E.
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)


Beaney, Alan
Ginsburg, David
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Bence, Cyril
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Manuel, Archie


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Mapp, Charles


Bidwell, Sydney
Gregory, Arnold
Marquand, David


Binns, John
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mason, Roy


Bishop, E. S.
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Mellish, Robert


Blackburn, F.
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Mendelson, J. J.


Booth, Albert
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mikardo, Ian


Boston, Terence
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Millan, Bruce


Bowden, Rt. Hn. Herbert
Hannan, William
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Harper, Joseph
Milne, Edward (Blyth)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Hart, Mrs. Judith
Molloy, William


Brooks, Edwin
Haseldine, Norman
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Hilton, W. S.
Moyle, Roland


Brown,Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W)
Hooley, Frank
Murray, Albert


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Neal, Harold


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Norwood, Christopher


Cant, R. B.
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Oakes, Gordon


Carmichael, Neil
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
O'Malley, Brian


Coe, Denis
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Orme, Stanley


Coleman, Donald
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Oswald, Thomas


Concannon, J. D.
Hynd, John
Owen, Will (Morpeth)


Conlan, Bernard
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Palmer, Arthur


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Jeger, Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras,S.)
Park, Trevor


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Pavitt, Laurence


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Pentland, Norman


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Kelley, Richard
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Davies, Robert (Cambridge)
Kenyon, Clifford
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Dewar, Donald
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Price, William (Rugby)


Dickens, James
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Rankin, John


Doig, Peter
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Reynolds, G. W.


Driberg, Tom
Lestor, Miss Joan
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Eadie, Alex
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Robinson, Rt.Hn.Kenneth(St.P'c'as)


Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly)
Lomas, Kenneth
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Loughlin, Charles
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Ensor, David
Luard, Evan
Rose, Paul







Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)
Wilkins, W. A.


Rowland, Christopher (Meriden)
Thornton, Ernest
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)
Tinn, James
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Sheldon, Robert
Tomney, Frank
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.
Urwin, T. W.
Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)


Short, Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Varley, Eric G.
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Varley)
Winnick, David


Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Walden, Brian (All Saints)
Winterbottom, R. E.


Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A


Slater, Joseph
Wallace, George
Woof, Robert


Small, William
Watkins, David (Consett)



Spriggs, Leslie
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Stonehouse, John
Wellbeloved, James
Mr. Charles R. Morris and


Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Whitaker, Ben
Mr. Grey.


Symonds, J. B.
Whitlock, William

New Clause No. 5.—(DUTY OF REGIONAL WATER BOARDS AND WATER DEVELOPMENT BOARDS TO CONSULT RIVER PURIFICATION AUTHORITIES.)

Where any River Purification Authority is likely to be affected by the exercise of any of their functions under this Act, Regional Water Boards and Water Development Boards shall consult any such Authority, and in the exercise of their functions under the Act they shall have regard to any representations made to them by any such authority.—[Mr. Monro.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Hector Monro: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
We discussed the principle of the new Clause in an Amendment to Clause 6, in Committee. The Minister of State is underestimating its importance. On reflection, I do not think that the Minister went as far as we thought he was going in the subsequent Amendment which he put down.
The Clause relates to the duty of river purification authorities to husband the resources of their area under the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) (Scotland) Act, 1951. It is, therefore, vital that these authorities should know as early as possible what abstraction or impounding of water is going on in their districts. Their calculations of effluent depend on the water available. All industries which pollute rivers are vitally concerned—for example, sewerage works, farms and any concern which discharges into a river.
The tiniest reduction in flow because the water board has impounded or abstracted will make nonsense of calculations and it is, therefore, vital that the purification authorities should be consulted as early as possible. Of course, it will save a regional water board time in surveying and planning if it knows the view of the purification authority as early as possible. The authority may say that the board may not have water from a

certain river because it will increase the strength of effluent and make nonsense of the authority's previous calculations.
I need to go into no further detail on this principle, as it has been argued in Committee. Statutory consultation is vital and there is no question of asking for representation on the water board. In reply to the debate in Committee, the Minister offered, and moved, an Amendment to Schedule 5, but I do not think, on reflection, that it went far enough, as it insisted only on the regional water board giving notice of its intention to proceed with works. This means after a decision has been made, and would, therefore, be too late. Time will have been wasted by the board and complications may be caused with the purification authorities.
The Minister accepted that it was right to consult, but said that Clause 6 was too early. But it is never too early to begin consultation on an important issue like this. It would save the time of the engineers because, if the water resource is not in the end available because of the objection of the purification authority, all the time which the board has spent will have been wasted. Also, with the information which the purification authorities already have, there is the possibility of duplication of effort.
5.15 p.m.
The Minister went on to say that a board is bound to consult the purification authority if it is prudent. I agree, but if it is so essential, why not put it into the Bill now? The Minister promised again, in column 216, to look at this and, because of his sympathy with our argument, we withdrew the Amendment at that time. The Minister amended Schedule 5, which altered the 1946 Act and which not only included the extra definition of river authority but required the water board to consult the river purification authority. But this is too late. Consultations are necessary sooner.
Not only do I and my colleagues think that this is important; so do the purification authorities concerned. I have had representations from the Solway and the Tweed River Purification Authorities, both of which are held in the highest esteem in water circles. I have read the letters from the hon. Gentleman's Department to the Solway Authority, in which the point about early consultation seems to have been missed. It is before a decision should be made that consultations are desirable. Both the authorities I have mentioned feel strongly about this and I have no reason to think that the Clyde River Purification Authority feels otherwise.
The new Clause is simple and concise and does what is wanted. It may save time and duplication of effort. We know that water engineers will be in extremely short supply and the less unnecessary work they have to do the better. I hope the Minister of State will accept the Clause, because it is logical and is what everyone in Scotland wants.

Mr. David Steel: I do not believe in repeating arguments which have already been put adequately. The hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) has put the case very well for the new Clause. However, since the Committee proceedings, I have had discussions with the Chief Officer of the Tweed River Purification Authority, at its headquarters. I was interested to see the valuable work which the authority does, which goes far beyond the general narrow idea of purification. They have a great deal of experience and basic information about the water resources of a region at their command. After that meeting, I have had representations from the Clerk to the Tweed Authority.
I would urge the Minister of State to accept the new Clause. It is not good enough to leave it open to the new authorities to consult the river purification authorities if they see fit. In this and so many other matters consultation and its effectiveness will depend on the personal relations which exist between the purification authorities' officers and those of the water boards. At present, in the River Tweed area these relationships are extremely good. It might, therefore, be argued that no statutory provision is required. However, in other parts of Scotland the position is not so good and we

do not know what the position will be when these boards come into force. It is, therefore, reasonable to say that in any changes that are envisaged for the development of water resources, the purification authorities, which have the expertise, should be consulted at the earliest possible point.
This is a minor point, but one of important principle but I hope, therefore, that the Minister will accept the Clause.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: I support this eminently reasonable Clause and hope that it will be accepted. Hon. Members should remember that when discussing a Bill of this nature we should not lose sight of its basic purpose, which is to look after one of our basic natural resources. In other words, this is largely a question of water conservation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) referred to the 1951 Act. Section 17(1) of that Measure describes fully the functions of river purification authorities and shows that these functions extend beyond the question of pollution, for it states:
It shall be the duty of the authorities specified in the next following subsection … to promote the cleanliness of the rivers and other inland waters and the tidal waters in their areas, to conserve so far as practicable the water resources of their areas and to exercise for those purposes the functions conferred on them by this Act.
This demonstrates the tremendously wide responsibilities that are already shouldered by river purification authorities. I hope, therefore, that it will be obligatory for the new boards to consult with these authorities at the earliest possible stage.
I do not intend to repeat in detail the arguments that have already been adduced. Anybody who has had experience, as I have, of the working of river purification authorities appreciates the tremendous local knowledge that these authorities possess. This knowledge has been built up since these bodies were established. They have officers working in particular localities who know about the water resources of their areas. They carry out work in river gauging, the measurement of rainfall, and so on, and, therefore, have a tremendous amount of information at their fingertips. This information will be of great importance


when the new boards consider new methods of guaranteeing the supply of water.
This extends more widely to the question of the abstraction of water high up in a river and the way in which this affects the quality of the water lower down. If the existing authorities are not consulted—remembering that one cannot be certain that they will be under the Bill as drafted—there will be the risk that the work that has been done by these authorities will be nullified by the work of the new bodies. This would be a great shame, remembering that at the end of the day we are all working toward the same aim.
I said that I would not repeat the arguments that have been adduced, but I must give one example to show what happens. About 50 per cent. of the river water in the Lothians area comes from underground sources. When considering the resources of water in the area one must, therefore, consider the water before it actually reaches the river.
The authority at present operating in the area is responsible for the cleanliness of the water and, in carrying out this responsibility, depends on getting its water not from a reservoir but from underground sources. I give this example to demonstrate that the responsibilities of river authorities extend beyond the rivers themselves.
It is vital that these consultations should take place at the earliest possible stage. I am sure that in many cases this will happen, even without the Clause, but we would be leaving it to chance. There will be cases when it will not happen and when all the good work that has been done will be lost. That is why I urge the Minister to accept the Clause, because, by doing so, he will ensure that what we all want to happen is not left to chance.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: Oliver Twist has always been a favourite character of mine. He had a good case and a fair request. When considering what happened in Committee, I suggest that hon. Gentlemen opposite are not now asking for a loaf—when in Committee we gave half a loaf—but are asking for one and a half loaves. In any case, there seems to be some confusion about exactly what happened in Committee and what is being asked for now.
In Committee, the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) made a good case. On that occasion I could not go the whole way and accept his case in its entirety. I appreciate that what he said came from the Solway River Purification Authority and I admit at once that I have a natural affection for these authorities. It was my privilege to be the Minister who took the 1965 Act through its Committee stage. I recall with some pleasure the important work done by my predecessor who represented Greenock and what he did when Secretary of State during the passage of the initial Act. I accept all that and I assure hon. Members that I have taken a keen interest in the work of these authorities. Only last night I was with the Chairman of the Scottish River Purification Advisory Committee.
It is not true to say that there is a general outcry from river purification authorities and that they are demanding much more than we have done in the Bill. The Lower Clyde has been mentioned, but the Lower Clyde Board has never written asking us to enact the provision contained in the Clause, no doubt because this and other authorities understand the change we made in Committee and what it means.
I do not dissent from the proposition that a regional water board which fails to consult is not doing its duty properly. That failure will be exposed whenever the time comes to go through the statutory obligations which are consequent on the Amendment which we have made to Schedule 1 of the 1946 Act. In Committee, the hon. Member for Dumfries referred to water being "suddenly abstracted" from a river by a regional water board. I responded by saying that water could not be suddenly abstracted in that way because a regional water board would require an Order under Section 21 of the 1964 Act. We made an Amendment in Committee to ensure that any interested river purification authority would be consulted and that the Secretary of State would, if the objection had not been withdrawn, cause an inquiry to be held. At that stage it would be obvious to the Secretary of State that the board, if it had not consulted the purification authority, had not properly carried out its duty.
It should be remembered that the board may have consulted the purification authority but that that authority had


not got its way. Consultation does not mean that one must do what the persons concerned are seeking to consult one about. That would be unfair and ridiculous. After all, the regional board may say, "We have consulted them and have new issued them with a statutory notice, and that is why they are objecting". We will make it clear when the Bill is passed, when we send out a circular to all authorities, exactly what the position is about consultation and the position, will be made clear not merely to river purification authorities but, as I said in Committee, to all other bodies.
Obviously, the purification authorities are the outstanding bodies to be consulted and would probably be the first to he consulted when a regional board had a proposal. However, the other bodies to which I was referring on that occasion cannot be dismissed. Although perhaps not as important as river purification authorities, they must be considered. I can think of the Nature Conservancy. A good case might be made out why that body should be added to the new Clause. There are the district fishery boards, and a good case could no doubt be made out why they should be included. There are various angling associations. Should not they be included?
We made concessions in Committee and, considering the variety of interested authorities, I suggest that, when exercising their functions, the regional boards will consult these bodies, including the purification authorities. To accept the Clause would mean that a regional board would in all circumstances have to
… consult any such Authority"—
meaning, in the Clause, any river purification authority—
…in the exercise of their functions under the Act…
I am arguing that there is a case in equity for including not just river purification authorities but, say, the Nature Conservancy, the district fishery boards and even the electricity boards.
The hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) made out a good case in Committee for considering the electricity boards in this context. I said in reply to his argument on that occasion that the new water boards would be failing in their duty if they did not consult, not from a statutory point of view but as good business men. If they did not have

early discussions with, say, the South of Scotland Electricity Board in the circumstances which the hon. Gentleman outlined, they would not be acting as good business men.
I was not prepared at that time to write in a statutory requirement, because "at the earliest stage" could mean the point when the matter came on the agenda at one of the board's meetings. Perhaps there could be an even earlier stage. It might be argued that there should be consultation even before the matter had appeared on the agenda.
There are statutory authorities other than electricity boards. In addition to angling associations, there are navigation authorities. In the Clyde, for example, there is not just a Clyde River Authority, but a Clyde Port Authority, which is an equally important organisation. There are certain reservations in the Bill about their statutory rights. It might even be argued that the Landowners' Federation should be the first to he consulted. What about the Association for the Preservation of Rural Scotland? There are all sorts of amenity societies.
I am saying that it is quite unfair to incorporate a Clause of this kind when it is so wide and when it specifies one particular agency, considering all the other agencies with interests in these matters.

Mr. David Steel: The Minister is making very heavy weather here. He is not suggesting, is he, that the extent of the river purification boards' information and direct involvement in water resources matters is in any way analogous to that of the Association for Preservation of Rural Scotland and the angling societies? The interest is quite different.

Dr. Mabon: I agree, but I do not know whether those authorities and private bodies would agree. We all have to respect the rights of minorities. Anglers most certainly have rights in the matter which we cannot dismiss, but there is no statutory authority in regard to them. With respect, it is not I who is making heavy weather. I think that the very heavy weather is made by two river purification authorities, which never really thought that the argument would be carried as far—or, at least, one of them did, but the other did not. My right hon. Friend is not bombarded with letters


saying, "There will be a terrible mess if we do not put in this provision."
I conceded the hon. Member a point in the Committee. I could not give him the whole case, but I gave him part of it. Ministers must consult. Our impression was that if we amended Schedule 5, as I think it was, so as to alter the position in the 1946 Act we would be providing a statutory right for river purification authorities to get this information, and to be consulted. Not one word has been said in support of river purification authorities with which I disagree. I believe that the case that has been put up is quite right and proper. They should be consulted as soon as possible, and perhaps some of the other associations that have been referred to could be considered as well in the appropriate context. The hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) would, I am sure, agree with what I said about electricity boards.
We cannot seek to incorporate a reference to one body, leave out the rest, and imagine that the rights of the rest are by inference unaffected. It might be argued that because Parliament deliberately left out those references there was no obligation, even on the score of good business, for the boards so to refer. I do not lay great stress on that, but if we are to have a new Clause referring to the rights of one public body, why should it not refer to other public bodies? Why should it not refer to individual private bodies?
I give the House the assurance that when the Bill is on the Statute Book the Secretary of State will ensure that a circular is sent to all the kinds of bodies I have mentioned including, naturally, the river purification authorities, and that we will make sure that the Secretary of State's Advisory Committee is aware of this, and is aware, also, of the opportunity to remind the Secretary of State, not that the regional boards are in breach of Statute—because they would not be—but are in breach of good practice, and to give him illustrations of the kind of thing that might happen in the Solway, the Tweed, or elsewhere.
I think that I have made a fair offer. It is not quite the full loaf that the hon. Member for Dumfries sought in Committee. He has already got half of it—

can he not settle for three-quarters rather than seek a loaf and a half?

Mr. MacArthur: I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) will not settle for this offer of an alleged half-loaf. I call the Minister's attention to the wording of Clause 6. The hon. Gentleman earlier suggested that by its wording this new Clause might require consultation at the earliest of stages. He certainly used the words that consultation would be required "at the earliest of stages". But there is no requirement in the Bill as it stands for any consultation at any time—neither at the earliest nor at the latest of stages.
All that Clause 6 lays down is that in matters of common interest regional water boards and water development boards shall consult together and collaborate. We have had a lot of debate about the word "collaborate" and I shall not go over it again. But the present wording of the Clause relates simply to regional water boards and water development boards. There is no mention of bodies outside. The Minister must agree, and it is clear from what he has said that he does agree, that river purification authorities have a particularly important place in water supply and development matters. The hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) made the point just now that they are in a special position in such matters.
The Minister may well consider, and I would not dispute it, that there are other bodies which should, on occasion, also be consulted because they have concern for water, amenities, and the like. In that case, let the hon. Gentleman give an undertaking now that in the Bill's next stage in another place he will introduce an Amendment to cover the point made by my hon. Friend and the general point he himself is advancing. It is not sufficient for him to rest on Clause 6 as it stands, because it does not provide—

Mr. Willis: Which Clause?

5.45 p.m.

Mr. MacArthur: Clause 6. I advise the hon. Gentleman to read the Bill.
As I was saying, it is not sufficient for the Minister to rest on Clause 6 as it stands, because it does not provide for that wider consultation that we believe is necessary—

Mr. Willis: I asked which Clause the hon. Gentleman was referring to, because we now happen to be discussing new Clause No. 5.

Mr. MacArthur: If the hon. Gentleman has been paying attention to the debate he will know that Clause 6 is the Clause to which we are primarily referring. There is no provision in Clause 6 for previous consultation with river purification authorities but only for consultation between regional water boards and water development boards. If the hon. Gentleman studies Clause 6, I hope that he will now accept that there is need for an extension of the consultation requirement.
My hon. Friend has advanced the argument most clearly. The Minister makes obeisance to what my hon. Friend says, and tells him, "Do not worry—we can send out a circular to cover the point". I do not think that Ministerial circulars are sufficient. Such matters should be precise. The Bill would be substantially improved if it were more precise in some respects, and this is one respect in which precision should be introduced into the Bill. If the hon. Gentleman cannot accept the new Clause as it stands, I hope that he will at least give an undertaking to meet this point and the wider point he himself advanced at a later stage in another place.

Mr. Manuel: I hope my hon. Friend will not be moved from his present position. It is bad for the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) and his hon. Friends to take up the hard position they have adopted. In my opinion it would cause a certain resentment to write into the Bill a provision with respect to river purification authorities but to omit from reference authorities doing valuable work on water provision and water cleanliness. I would be very opposed to such a provision being inserted, although I recognise its supreme importance.
During my adult life I have allied myself with the work done by purification authorities, but I realise equally the immense stature and capability of, and the trust reposed in, for instance, the Hydro-Electric Board. I realise the intense interest that the Board has in connection with the extraction of water in many of the areas it administers. I quite understand the hon. Member for Dum-

fries seeking to put forward the representations he has had from his area, but he must recognise that in legislation of this kind we are looking at Scotland as a whole, and not at a particular area, so that it will apply equitably throughout Scotland.
It will be admitted that not all river purification boards are as strong as they are in Ayrshire and Dumfries-shire. Some are no more than an adjunct of the county council. There will, therefore, be some resentment if these provisions are made as hard and as fast as the hon. Member for Dumfries suggests. Hon. Members would be well advised to think of Scotland as a whole and of the importance of all the authorities which may be interested, and not to pinpoint one which they may consider to be the most important and which may be the most important.
We have to recognise that the Hydro-Electric Board and other authorities mentioned by my hon. Friend the Minister of State will consider their range of duties to be equally important. By adopting the hon. Member's suggestion, we would at any rate tend to set them against what we are trying to do. On the other hand, my hon. Friend's proposition puts the onus on the regional water board to notify all concerned.

Mr. Monro: After the decision.

Mr. Manuel: Not after the decision. My hon. Friend explained this very carefully and I accept his honesty of purpose and integrity, as would hon Members opposite if they had known him as long as I have.

Mr. Monro: If the Minister of State thinks that he has given me half a loaf, I am glad that I do not come frequently to his table for crumbs. The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) and the Minister are making extraordinary heavy weather of what ought to be a very simple situation. What my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel), who has given us his very knowledgeable views on the Tweed Board are arguing is that before water boards reach any decision they should get in touch with river purification boards. That does not seem to be too much to ask, particularly when hon. Members


on both sides of the House have spoken of the great warmth of feeling and cooperation in this respect. We are not asking much, but this is vitally important.
The Minister of State said that I had no right to include the views of the Clyde River Purification Board. If he had read "The Water Service in Scotland", he would have seen that in its evidence, reported on page 74, the Clyde River Purification Board said:
The Board welcome the linking of public supply undertakings into larger units and suggest that a procedure should be laid down to secure that the Board are fully consulted at an early stage about all new abstractions.
That is exactly what I am arguing.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: On the contrary, the hon. Gentleman is asking for consultation at all stages to be a statutory requirement. There is a big difference between a statutory requirment and a procedure. A procedure can be consequential upon a statutory requirement, or upon certain administrative understandings in which the Secretary of State is the principal officer concerned.

Mr. Monro: We are considering what will be a new Act and we want to be

absolutely clear and seen to be clear. It is quite wrong to legislate by circular. I would have thought that such a suggestion was not worthy of the Minister. It should be firmly laid down in the Bill that a regional water board should notify the river purification board at the earliest moment.

The Minister overplayed his hand when he started talking about fishing rights and the Nature Conservancy. While all those are important, in a way they are covered by the blanket work of a river purification board. Their purpose is to see that the river is kept in the cleanest possible state for fish and other wild life. That is one of the aims of the purification authorities—to provide fresh clear water in our rivers for the benefit of fish and bird life—and they will, naturally, take a very close interest in those branches of field sports and pursuits.

The Minister has failed to meet me in any way since the Committee stage and I therefore have no hesitation in dividing the House.

Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 137, Noes 199.

Division No. 317.]
AYES
[5.55 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Astor, John
Errington, Eir Eric
Kimball, Marcus


Awdry, Daniel
Eyre, Reginald
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)


Baker, W. H. K.
Foster, Sir John
Kitson, Timothy


Balniel, Lord
Gibson-Watt, David
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Batsford, Brian
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Bell, Ronald
Goodhart, Philip
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Goodhew, Victor
Loveys, W. H.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. &amp; Fhm)
Gower, Raymond
Lubbock, Eric


Blaker, Peter
Grant-Ferris, R.
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Bossom, Sir Clive
Gresham Cooke, R.
MacArthur, Ian


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross &amp; Crom'ty)


Braine, Bernard
Gurden, Harold
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Maginnis, John E.


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Hamilton, Marquess of (Fermanagh)
Maude, Angus


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N &amp; M)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Mawby, Ray


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Bullus, Sir Eric
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.


Burden, F. A.
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Campbell, Gordon
Hawkins, Paul
Miscampbell, Norman


Carlisle, Mark
Higgins, Terence L.
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Hiley, Joseph
More, Jasper


Clegg, Walter
Hill, J. E. B.
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Hirst, Geoffrey
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Corfield, F. V.
Holland, Philip
Murton, Oscar


Costain, A. P.
Hooson, Emlyn
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Hordern, Peter
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Hunt, John
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian


Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Iremonger, T. L.
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Doughty, Charles
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Drayson, G. B.
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Percival, Ian


Eden, Sir John
Jopling, Michael
Pike, Miss Mervyn




Prior, J. M. L.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Pym, Francis
Tapsell, Peter
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Temple, John M.
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Russell, Sir Ronald
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Worsley, Marcus


Scott, Nicholas
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Younger, Hn. George


Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)



Smith, John
Walters, Dennis
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Ward, Dame Irene
Mr. Grant and Mr. Monro.


Stodart, Anthony
Webster, David





NOES


Abse, Leo
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Norwood, Christopher


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Oakes, Gordon


Alldritt, Walter
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
O'Malley, Brian


Allen, Scholefield
Gregory, Arnold
Orme, Stanley


Anderson, Donald
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Oswald, Thomas


Armstrong, Ernest
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Owen, Will (Morpeth)


Ashley, Jack
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Palmer, Arthur


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Park, Trevor


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Hannan, William
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Barnett, Joel
Harper, Joseph
Pavitt, Laurence


Beaney, Alan
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Bence, Cyril
Hart, Mrs. Judith
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Haseldine, Norman
Pentland, Norman


Bidwell, Sydney
Hilton, W. S.
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Binns, John
Hooley, Frank
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Bishop, E. S.
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Blackburn, F.
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Price, William (Rugby)


Booth, Albert
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Rankin, John


Boston, Terence
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Reynolds, G. W.


Bowden, Rt. Hn. Herbert
Hynd, John
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Irvine, T. J. (Edge Hill)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Bray, Dr, Jeremy
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as)


Brooks, Edwin
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n &amp; St. P'cras, S.)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Brown, Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Rose, Paul


Buchanan Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Ross. Rt. Hn. William


Butler, Mis. Joyce (Wood Green)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Rowland. Christopher (Meriden)


Cant, R. B.
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Rowlands. E. (Cardiff, N.)


Carmichael, Neil
Kenyon, Clifford
Sheldon, Robert


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Coe, Denis
Kerr Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Coleman, Donald
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Concannon, J. D.
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Conlan, Bernard
Lestor, Miss Joan
Slater, Joseph


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Small, William


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Spriggs, Leslie


Cronin, John
Lomas, Kenneth
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Crossman, Rt, Hn. Richard
Loughlin, Charles
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Luard, Evan
Symonds, J. B.


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Thornton, Ernest


Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
McBride, Neil
Tinn, James


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
MacColl, James
Tomney, Frank


Davies, Robert (Cambridge)
MacDermot, Niall
Urwin, T. W.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
McGuire, Michael
Varley, Eric G.


Dewar, Donald
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Dickens, James
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Wallace, George


Doig, Peter
Mackintosh, John P.
Watkins, David (Consett)


Driberg, Tom
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
MacPherson, Malcolm
Wellbeloved, James


Eadie, Alex
Mahon, Peter (Preston, s.)
Whitaker, Ben


Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Whitlock, William


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Manuel, Archie
Wilkins, W. A.


Ensor, David
Mapp, Charles
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Faulds, Andrew
Marquand, David
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Finch, Harold
Mason, Roy
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)
Mendelson, J. J.
Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Mikardo, Ian
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Millan, Bruce
Winnick, David


Floud, Bernard
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Winterbottom, R. E.


Foley, Maurice
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Ford, Bert
Molloy, William
Woof, Robert


Forrester, John
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)



Fowler, Gerry
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Galpern, Sir Myer
Moyle, Roland
Mr. Harold Walker and


Garrett, W. E.
Murray, Albert
Mr. Grey.


Ginsburg, David
Neal, Harold

Clause 3.—(CENTRAL SCOTLAND WATER DEVELOPMENT BOARD.)

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 2, line 36, to leave out 'hereafter'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): With this Amendment I suggest that we discuss Amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 36, leave out 'hereafter in this Act' and insert 'hereinafter'.

Dr. Mabon: This is a purely drafting Amendment. In Committee I gave an undertaking to the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie) that I would table an Amendment to remove any words which I thought were redundant from the phrase
hereafter in this Act referred to as 'the Central Board'".
The hon. and learned Gentleman suggested the omission of the words "in this Act" and later said that he was prepared to settle for the deletion of "hereafter … referred to as". I presume that this is the intention of Amendment No. 1.
The Government have taken advice on this. We have come to the conclusion that we should retain the words
in this Act referred to as
to provide a short title for references in the Bill to the Central Scotland Water Development Board. In other words, without knowing what the Opposition wanted to table—and I understand why they have tabled their Amendment—I thought that the best way of honouring my undertaking was to table Amendment No. 2. I think that it does what the hon. and learned Gentleman wants, even though it does not take out quite so many words as he would have wished.

Mr. MacArthur: We had an interesting and entertaining debate on this point in Committee. Before rising to speak I looked up the OFFICIAL REPORT of the proceedings in Committee. I believe that "hereinafter" was a good brainwave proposal which arose during the course of the debate. Our ideas are better than the Secretary of State's. I still think that "hereinafter" is a better economy of words. However, the Minister of State has recognised that there is a case for tidying up the phrase. His tidying up is less economical than ours, but since he has

recognised the need for economy I would not wish to press the point any further.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 7.—(CONSTITUTION OF REGIONAL WATER BOARDS.)

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross): I beg to move Amendment No. 4, in page 4, line 30, to leave out "total" and to insert "rateable".
I suggest that it would be convenient to discuss with this Amendment, Amendments Nos. 5 and 6.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If that is the wish of the House.

Mr. Ross: These three Amendments meet an undertaking which the Minister gave in Committee, and are a modification of an Opposition Amendment which was slightly defective.
The Amendments clarify what is already intended by the subsection—that in determining the number of members of a regional water board which each local authority is to appoint, the Secretary of State is to have regard to rateable valuation as well as to the population of each local authority district in the region. The principle here is to relate membership to two main criteria: the way in which the board's expenditure will fall to be met by the constituent authority and the population which each authority will comprise.
The Clause as drafted, however, refers to "total valuation". The Minister accepted the Opposition's criticism that this might tend to be confusing in the absence of any definition of that expression in the Bill. The intention is that, as recommended by the Scottish Water Advisory Committee, the measure should be "rateable valuation", which is defined in Section 43(1) of the Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act, 1956, as:
in relation to any area, means the total of the rateable values of the lands and heritages in that area".
Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 are consequential.

Mr. MacArthur: I was a little depressed to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that the Amendment we moved in Committee was slightly defective. Apparently, in his view it was wholly defective. I still believe that it was a very


good Amendment. However, the Secretary of State has been generous enough to concede the principle of that Amendment. We are obliged to him for meeting our point. The slight modification he has made to our proposal is acceptable, and I hope that the House will approve it.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: No. 5, in line 32, after 'subsection', insert
'(a)'.

No. 6, in line 34, at end insert:
'; and
(b) the expression "rateable valuation" has the meaning assigned to it by section 43(1) of the Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act 1956'.—[Mr. Ross.]

Clause 8.—(CONSTITUTION OF WATER DEVELOPMENT BOARDS.)

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I beg to move Amendment No. 8, in page 5, to leave out lines 6 to 8.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this Amendment we may discuss Amendment No. 7, in line 6, to leave out 'A water development board' and to insert:
'The Central Board shall consist of such number of members being not less than seven and not more than fourteen, as the Secretary of State may by order specify, and any other water development board established under this Act',
and Amendment No. 9, line 13, to leave out from the second 'be' to the end of line 14 and to insert:
'two or such greater number as the Secretary of State may by order specify in relation to any constituent board where he is satisfied that the greater number is necessary in view of special circumstances relating to that board or their region'.

Dr. Mabon: In discussing Amendments Nos. 7, 8 and 9 together, it seems that we have reached a rather interesting situation, almost doing a minuet of argument. In Committee, the Opposition's intention was to have a water development board of a minimum of 10 and a maximum of 20 members. It was part of my argument, since we were to have discussions with the regions and take their advice, that we might even be able to provide for equity of representation. The regions are different in population, in rateable value and in their uptake of water from the Loch Turret scheme, which exists, and the Loch Lomond scheme which will be developed shortly.

Since there are these differences between the regions on those three scores, we thought that it might be desirable to have equity of representation, and I even hinted that we might be able to get seven members from the seven regions. I thought it unwise, therefore, to make the Amendment which the Opposition suggested at that time.
Influenced, no doubt, by the force of my argument on that occasion, the Opposition have taken me at my word and put down Amendment No. 7 providing for
not less than seven and not more than 14
members. I should explain that, in the interval, we have had discussions with several of the regional boards. The Government accept that it is asking too much to expect the regions, particularly those which draw a large amount of water and have large populations, to have fewer than two members. Our Amendment No. 9, therefore, proposes that there should be
two or such greater number as the Secretary of State may by order specify in relation to any constituent board".
We have proposed two because of the general view in the meetings which we have had with the proposed regional bodies, and we have taken account also of a representation made to us that there may be a case for a region having more than two members. I do not expect this to be four. I expect it to be three. There is a specific ground for this suggestion, and we are still discussing the question with the regional bodies concerned.
There is an argument that we should give one extra on grounds of population. This was put to me on Friday at the meeting with the British Waterworks Association, when, in answer to some questions which I put, it was said that there might be a case for extending the number to, say, four for the lower Clyde region, three for the South-East region, and two for the others. Somebody came up with the argument that there should be one member for those regions which do not take water.
There are other permutations based on the three criteria of rateable value, uptake of water and population. But the Government are satisfied that, at the present stage of our deliberations, it would be wise to speak of two members for the regions or such greater number as


might be specified, on the understanding—we do not put it in the Statute—that we do not expect to appoint more than three for any one region, and we may not even wish to do that.
This is the Government's intention, but, as I say, it is very much open to debate. I explained this on Friday, saying that the Secretary of State is anxious to get the proper consensus of opinion. My feeling about the Amendment now, however, is that we should let it stand as it is in the present state of our deliberations. I may be wrong, and the Government are very much open to argument on it. The Opposition have been very fair in their approach. They will now see that we have come round to their view as a consequence of our deliberations. I only ask them to accept our present intention and support the Amendment.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. MacArthur: I am in some difficulty here because the Minister of State has been jumping about like a cricket. He has said so much that it is difficult to know whether to agree or disagree. On balance, I am inclined to agree, and I say that because the hon. Gentleman has now accepted the main point of our argument in Committee, which was that it would not be reasonable to leave the composition of the central board in the air, as would happen if the Bill remained as it stood. We are precise in the Bill about the composition of the regional boards. It seems right, therefore, to be reasonably precise about the composition of the Central Board.
In Committee, we proposed that the Central Board should consist of a minimum of 10 and a maximum of 20 members. This view was opposed by the hon. Gentleman at the time, though he undertook to look at the matter again. This he has done, coming forward with an Amendment now which honours his undertaking. In fact, he has come very much towards the Amendment which we proposed in Committee. What a lot of time and trouble he would have saved had he accepted that Amendment in the first place.
We listened to the hon. Gentleman's argument with respect when we discussed the matter in Committee—we always listen to him with respect, though not

always with agreement—and, as he pointed out just now, our Amendment shows that we had a lot of sympathy with what he then said. We consider, as he did then, that it is right for the Central Board to have a small rather than a large membership. Equally, we strongly believe that the Central Board not only should have representation from the regional boards within the Central Board's area but should have special regard to those regional boards which cover vast areas of the country and some of the remoter glens with particular problems to which special expression should be given on the Central Board. The hon. Gentleman smiles at what I say. He probably remembers that my own home is in one of the remote glens, and I have a particular interest in the remoter areas, as he has, too.
I do not insist on our Amendment No. 7. I think that the Government Amendment meets the point fairly well. I am a little worried that it may go even further than we ourselves originally proposed. Nevertheless, the hon. Gentleman has taken the point. He interprets it fairly reasonably in his Amendment No. 9, and I hope that in the operation of the Clause as amended, the remoter areas will have proper and reasonable representation on the Central Board.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: No. 9, in page 5, line 13, leave out from second 'be' to end of line 14 and insert:
'two or such greater number as the Secretary of State may by order specify in relation to any constituent board where he is satisfied that the greater number is necessary in view of special circumstances relating to that board or their region'.—[Dr. Dickson Mabon.]

Clause 9.—(ACCOUNTS AND AUDIT.)

Mr. Ross: I beg to move Amendment No. 10, in page 5, line 34, after 'provisions' to insert, 'of that section and'.
This Amendment applies certain provisions of Section 8 of the Local Government (Development and Finance) (Scotland) Act, 1964, to capital funds and renewal and repair funds established by a board under Clause 9. As drafted, Clause 9 provides for regional water boards and water development boards the necessary machinery for the general management of their funds and accounts, to


a large extent by applying provisions of the Local Government (Scotland) Acts.
Subsection (3) as drafted extends to the boards the like powers conferred on local authorities by the 1964 Act to establish capital and renewal and repair funds. But Section 8 of that Act also provides that moneys in such funds must be invested in statutory securities until they are required, and their provision should apply to capital and renewal and repair funds established by a board under the Bill. That was not done in the original draft and is now done by the Amendment.
Statutory securities as defined by Section 8(7) of the 1964 Act are:

"(a) any security in which trustees are for the time being authorised by law to invest trust moneys,
(b) any mortgage, bond, debenture, debenture stock, stock, annuity or other security created by a local authority, and
(c) any feu-duty or ground-annual, but does not include any security transferable by delivery."

I think that the Amendment is sensible and reasonable.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 10.—(ESTIMATES AND REQUISITIONS.)

Mr. MacArthur: I beg to move Amendment No. 11, in page 6, line 37, to leave out 'may be determined by the board' and insert:
'they and the board agree and failing agreement as the Secretary of State may determine,'.
This is a small but important point which I did not raise in Committee. I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman for giving relatively short notice of it, but I am sure that he will by now have taken its point.
Clause 10 provides for the requisition arrangements by the regional water boards and water development boards. Under subsection (3), the boards have power to
… cause a requisition in respect of the financial year … to be sent to their contributing authorities requiring each of them to pay such sum as may be apportioned to each …
The subsection adds that these requisitions shall be paid
at such intervals and by such instalments as may be determined by the board, …
As it stands, that is not particularly unreasonable, but it raises one problem which many local authorities might well

face. Under the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1947, local authorities are not allowed to demand payment of rates before 1st November in any year, and although it is possible to collect a proportion of rate revenue before 1st November by instalment schemes which they are allowed to introduce, I understand that very few local authorities succeed in doing that.
Therefore, if under Clause 10 the regional boards demanded payment of their requisition by, say, three instalments, payable in June, September and December for example, the local authorities would require to borrow in order to pay the requisition in advance of the receipt of rate moneys. The interest charges which would result would be a burden on the rating account rather than on the water account. It appears that there is no good reason why payment of requisitions to water boards should not be governed by the provisions of the 1947 Act, which apply to all other requisitions.
What I have done, therefore, is to "lift" the relevant part of Section 214(4) of the 1947 Act, and the Amendment simply proposes that it should be introduced into the Bill. The result would be that the intervals and instalments of the requisitions would be determined not by the board alone but by the board and the local authority. In the event of any dispute the Secretary of State would determine what the interval and instalments should be. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that that is a reasonable proposition.

Mr. Manuel: Many local authorities—indeed, almost all—receive rate payments from local authority houses by collections on a weekly or fortnightly basis with the rent. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will bear that in mind.

Mr. MacArthur: I agree, but while local authorities generally have power to collect rates by instalment, they are not always able to introduce such schemes. I understand that if they were required to pay moneys over to the regional boards before 1st November they might have to borrow money, and that would be an added burden to the ratepayers.

Mr. Ross: As the hon. Gentleman says, the effect of the Amendment would be that the arrangement for paying over


the sums requisitioned would be on a basis agreed by each authority and the board, and, failing agreement, on a basis determined by the Secretary of State. If for some reason or other there were disagreement the Secretary of State would accept the responsibility of making a determination.
I agree that the basis provided for in the Amendment is the normal arrangement applying to requisitions by joint committees and joint boards under the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1947. But there are other Acts and other Orders, such as the West Lothian Water Board Order, 1958, which have incorporated a provision that the intervals and instalments for payment of requisitions will be determined by the board.
However, on reflection, I think that that is probably a bit too rigid. It may well be that a disagreement will arise—not terribly important, but one which the bodies concerned think the Secretary of State should determine—and I am prepared to accept that there should be scope for settling the arrangements by such a decision and reference, and on that basis I think that we should accept the Amendment.

Mr. MacArthur: I am astonished and very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. When he started referring to other Acts and Measures I thought that he was about to explain why, because of all sorts of precedents, it should not be accepted. I am most grateful, and I am sure that the Amendment will be an easement for many local authorities in Scotland.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 11.—(CALCULATION OF AMOUNT TO BE REQUISITIONED BY REGIONAL WATER BOARDS.)

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I beg to move Amendment No. 12, in page 7, line 26, after '(2)', to insert:
'Subject to the provisions of subsection (4) of this section,'.
The Amendment is consequential on an Amendment which we made to subsection (4) of the Clause in Committee. Subsection (2) requires that a third of the total amount to be requisitioned by a regional water board must be apportioned among the contributing authorities of the Board in the same proportion as the rate

product of the relevant part of each of their districts bears to the aggregate of the rate product of the relevant parts of the districts of all the authorities in the region. We debated that in Committee.
Subsection (3) provides that the remainder of the total amount to be requisitioned by the Board is to be apportioned among its contributing authorities in the same proportion as the domestic water rate product of the relevant part of each of their districts bears to the aggregate of the rate products of the relevant parts of the districts of all the authorities in the region.
As originally drafted, subsection (4) qualified subsection (3) by providing that the normal method of apportioning the remaining two-thirds of the total amount to be requisitioned under that subsection was not to be applied in the case of any board where the Secretary of State specified by Order that a modified or different method of calculation was to be adopted for such period as was mentioned in the Order in relation to that board. The Amendment which we agreed in Committee, and now incorporated in subsection (4), enables the Secretary of State to modify the requisitioning arrangements in subsection (2) as well as in subsection (3). Accordingly, we must introduce the qualifying introductory words provided for in the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

6.30 p.m.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I beg to move Amendment No. 13, in page 8, line 11, to leave out from the first 'the' to the end of the line and to insert:
'following provisions of this section'.
If the House is agreeable, we might discuss with this Amendment the Government Amendments Nos. 4, 19 and 74 as they all bear on the same point.

Mr. Speaker: If the Opposition has no objection, so be it.

Dr. Mabon: These Amendments remedy a deficiency in Clause 11 as drafted. It contains no provision to estimate the rate products which are to apply in requisitions by regional water boards on their contributing authorities to be calculated on the basis of rate products for the financial year immediately


preceding the year in respect of which the requisition is made.
Since the Committee stage the County Councils Association has represented to us that a requisition is respect of a year in which a revaluation takes place should be made on the basis of the current year's valuation instead of on the basis of the preceding year. This is the arrangement for all other requisitions as a consequence of Section 12(2) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1966. It has the effect of enabling the Secretary of State to estimate for any year for any area both the product of the rate for which a third of the requisition is to be calculated and the product of a 1d. in the £ on which the balance is to be calculated.
Amendment No. 14, which applies the provisions of Section 9(1) and (2) of the Local Government (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act, 1963, is needed to ensure that there will be no doubt about the interpretation of the expression
product of a domestic rate of one penny in the pound
used in subsection (3) of the Clause, read with Section 12 of the Act of 1966. Its effect will be that the Secretary of State will make rules, as he already does for the product of a rate of a 1d. in the £ and the standard rate product, by Statutory Instrument after consulting with local authority associations, and will then apply these rules in consultation with the local authorities for the purpose of determining the various rate products to be used by the regional water boards in making their requisitions. These rules, which will be Statutory Instruments, are, of course, subject to annulment by the House of Commons.
Amendments Nos. 13 and 74 are consequential on the principal Amendments Nos. 14 and 19.

Mr. J. Grimond: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. There are two Amendments numbered 74 on the Notice Paper. So that there may be no confusion, may I put on record that we are now discussing Amendment No. 74 in page 7508, and not Amendment No. 74 in page 7516a: in page 22, line 24 [Schedule 1], at end insert:



Orkney and Zetland Water Board.
Limits of Supply of:—



Kirkwall Town Council



Orkney County Council



Stromness County Council



Lerwick Town Council



Zetland County Council.

Mr. Speaker: The responsibility for the double numbering is not that of the Government or the Opposition.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: No. 14, in line 19, at end insert:
(4) In relation to the reference in the foregoing subsection to the product of a domestic water rate of one penny in the pound for the relevant financial year levied for the relevant part of a district, section 9(1) of the Local Government (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1963 shall apply, as it applies to the references in Part I of that Act to the product of the rate of one penny in the pound, with the substitution for the words 'that area' of the words 'that part'; and for the purposes of the said section 9(1), as so applied subsection (2) of that section shall also apply.

No. 74, in line 24, leave out:
'the two last foregoing subsections' and insert 'subsections (2) and (3) of this section'.—[Dr. Dickson Mabon.]

Mr. Ross: I beg to move Amendment No. 15, in page 8, line 26, at the end to insert:
', in either event, may so specify'.
This is a purely drafting Amendment to clarify the scope of the transitional arrangements which can be made by the Secretary of State under Clause 11(4). Of the aggregate amount to be requisitioned by a board, one-third is to be requisitioned in proportion to the actual or standard 1d. rate product, whichever is the higher, of the various local authority districts or parts of districts in the board's area of supply. The remaining two-thirds is to be requisitioned in proportion to the domestic water rate products of those districts.
Subsection (4) qualifies the normal requisitioning arrangements under subsections (2) and (3) and enables the Secretary of State to specify a modified or different method of calculation for such period as is mentioned in the Order. The phrase relating to the financial years has no closely related verb and the Amendment will improve the construction of the Clause, which is somewhat lengthy, and will serve to clarify what can be done by the Secretary of State.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Willis: I beg to move Amendment No. 16, in page 8, line 27, after 'years', to insert:
'up to a maximum of twelve years'.
This is a humble Amendment. I am not quite sure that it is in the right place, but it raises a point with which my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) and I are concerned. That is the period for transition. We were prompted to put down this Amendment because of the great concern of Midlothian about this matter. In spite of very lengthy discussions in Committee and, I believe, in meetings which my hon. Friend the Minister of State has had with the Midlothian local authority, that authority still has great fears about how this provision will be operated.
In Committee, the period for transition was accepted as about five years. This arose out of the Second Report of the Water Advisory Committee, but in its Final Report that Committee discarded all the business about 5 or 10 years and came down definitely in favour of a period up to 12 years. It seems that—inadvertently, of course—my hon. Friend was rather misleading about this in Committee. The Advisory Committee, having considered previous recommendations about a five year period and possibly one up to 10 years and very exceptionally up to 12 years, said, at the end of paragraph 158 of the Report:
We therefore recommend that the period should vary in length for eligible authorities according to the circumstances of each case with the maximum of 12 years which should in no case be exceeded.
This period should be written into the Bill. I have heard the argument that the maximum period would become the minimum period, but I do not think that would be so in the context of this subsection because it deals with changes made by the Secretary of State.
I am pleased to move this Amendment because I have a nostalgic loyalty to the Water Advisory Committee. It carries me back to my maiden speech in the House. In fact, the Committee exists because of that maiden speech and because, encouraged by my hon. Friends at that time, I ventured to put down an Amendment and the Minister of that time accepted it. He did so because he thought that my industry should be encouraged and also because, he said, the Amend-

ment did not mean a thing. Therefore, and as a sort of tribute to the Committee, I should like to see this period written into the Bill.
Apart altogether from that, I think that the fears of Midlothian County Council are justified. It has had some experience of transitional periods in joining with Edinburgh and it has gone through all the recent discussions over the Loch Lomond Order and all the fears which that aroused. As a result, the council is canny and wants to see something put into the Bill to indicate the kind of period over which a transitional order could extend.

Mr. George Younger: I would like to assure the hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) that he is not alone in feeling that this would be an admirable Amendment to include in the Bill, and that the concern which he has expressed about the possible repercussions on this point is not confined only to Midlothian. It is felt by many other hon. Members in other parts of Scotland. I have two points in support of this argument. The first is that we must not disregard the fact that the Water Advisory Committee clearly considered this to be of such great importance that it was worth while returning to it in its Fourth Report. It is not stretching a point to say that it almost reconsidered the matter afresh in that Report. If we believe in taking the advice when we can, of the experts whom we establish to advise us, this is a case when we should do so.
The second point has to do with that raised by the hon. Gentleman the Minister of State, in Committee, when replying to a similar Amendment. He said that one of the objections to accepting such an Amendment would be that it was quite possible that 12 years might not be a sufficient length of time in some cases. I can see that this is an argument which could be used, but I ask the hon. Gentleman to consider very carefully whether that is a justifiable view. Do we really feel that matters are sufficiently predictable, that we can see things sufficiently far ahead to say that it will be necessary to go as far as 15 years into the future on this matter, which was the figure quoted in Committee?
The Water Advisory Committee has considered this as a maximum which


should not be exceeded in any case. If it thinks that, there is very little likelihood of any local authority or water authority being hardly done by by finding that it could not have the period raised from 12 to 15 years. Twelve years is an entirely reasonable maximum. Is it the case that if we say 12 years in the Bill it will be regarded as the minimum period? I cannot accept that anyone taking a clear view of this matter could regard 12 years as a minimum if it is written into the Bill as a maximum. That is stretching things a long way.
If we do write in the figure of 12 as recommended, it will be regarded as a maximum, quite rightly. All authorities in their negotiations, having a maximum figure of 12 years in mind, might perhaps find it easier to assess their correct place on the scale of number of years that they would be justified in claiming and negotiating. The only arguments against accepting this Amendment is if the hon. Gentleman really believes that 12 years will not be enough for some authorities. I should very much doubt it and I hope that he will be able to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) wish to address the House?

Mr. Alex Eadie: No, Mr. Speaker.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: The debate that we had in Committee was of this nature, arguing that there should be a precise number of years and a precise maxima. Some Members insisted that we ought to talk about norms and provide guide lines. I explained in columns 301, 305, and 337 of HANSARD the kind of guide lines that the Government thought ought to be observed in the discussions among the regional water boards. It is a curious argument, this contention about the maximum of 12 years.
In certain cases it would not be enough. Certainly, in the case of Ayrshire, when there was an Order affecting that county, which proved to be abortive, the period of time—I am speaking off the cuff—was 20 years. It was certainly more than 12 in the case of Midlothian, not only on the original Order but on the revision of the original Order. This is a very important point. The initial union with Edinburgh involved a transitional period of 20 years,

which would not be allowed by the Amendment. The revised Order was for 15 years, which, again, would be disallowed by the Amendment.
We have the benefit, unfortunately the House does not, of having been to the meetings and obtaining assessments of how the discussions are going with the main groupings of authorities in the 13 regions. Seven of them have been attended by a senior Departmental officer, who has reported directly to the Secretary of State and myself. The existence of this provision, without any definition either of minima or maxima, has helped, not hindered the negotiations, and it is better to leave it to the local authorities to resolve this. We know of no authority which has expressed concern, certainly not Midlothian, at the discussions going on in the South-East. I met some of the representatives of the South-East on Friday.
6.45 p.m.
If there is some feeling on the part of Midlothian that transitional financial provisions for the South-East ought to be less than 12 years, or ought to be more than 12 years, it is fair and proper that Midlothian should say that at the meeting of the South-East, and if it disagrees with the rest of the authorities over this it can raise the matter directly with the Secretary of State.

Mr. Eadie: My hon. Friend cannot make a statement like that. He drew the attention of the House to columns 301 and 305. If he looks at the places quoted he will see that I raised this issue. If he looks at column 306 he will see that I told him:
I am already getting them."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Grand Committee, 2nd March, 1967; c. 306.]
This was a reference to letters from high rated authorities complaining about the time that they would have to wait to get their rates ironed out.
I drew my hon. Friend's attention to the fact that I was being circulated by the Midlothian County Council on the very point that he had made. He cannot tell the House that Midlothian has raised no protestations, when I voiced those very protestations on behalf of Midlothian.

Dr. Mabon: There is a misunderstanding here. I am not talking about the arguments in support of this Amendment. I am talking about the discussions


going on involving Edinburgh and Midlothian. The Scottish Office, under both Governments, has had a long dialogue with Edinburgh and Midlothian over their participation in the Loch Lomond Water Order. Because of the argument over that, and the transitional financial arrangements flowing from it, and the uncertainty surrounding the financial arrangements, there has been misunderstanding and ill-feeling.
I do not mean ill-feeling personally, but since then matters have changed. Members on the Committee were the first to witness a change in the climate of opinion, largely as a result of the efforts of the Government and hon. Members. We have had several meetings in the Palace of Westminster to discuss these matters in full. What I am saying to the Committee, on behalf of the Secretary of State, is that these discussions are going well and that we know of no reason why we should import into this Clause any specific minima or maxima.
On the contrary, there is every reason to say that we should leave it alone. If Midlothian feels that there has to be, for Midlothian's sake, a proviso in the transitional financial arrangements affecting Midlothian ensuring a maximum of 12 years, there is no reason why Midlothian cannot put that point of view to the South-East Regional Group. If it failed to convince the group, it can ask the Secretary of State to bear its representations in mind in the specific context of the provisions for the South-East Region. We hope that there will be, and in every normal case there should be, provision for a review to be made of the transitional arrangements at the end of say, three or five years. Therefore, even an Order, once made, can still be reviewed so that if a minority interest feels aggrieved, and even if it has been rebuffed by the Secretary of State, it will still be able to ask for the matter to be raised again.
If I were not sure of how the discussions were going, I should not report so confidently to the House. It would be a mistake to amend the Clause. We should leave it as it is. If there is a case to be made on behalf of Ayrshire or Ayr Burgh and Midlothian, I have no doubt that, with their usual courage and tenacity, they will bring it to the attention of the

Secretary of State at the earliest possible moment.

Mr. Willis: I am glad that my hon. Friend is likely to consider the possibility of reviewing the transitional arrangements. However, I am not altogether convinced by his arguments. Whether or not the discussions concerning the South-East are going satisfactorily does not affect the merits of the Amendment. We tabled the Amendment because Midlothian asked us to do so, but that does not alter its merits.
I should have thought that the Amendment was sufficiently good to stand on its own feet. It concerns one of the main recommendations of the Advisory Committee, which examined the matter twice. It changed its mind because of the change in local government financial arrangements. It considered it again as a result of the Acts which were passed and the different local government financial arrangements which had been made.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: Dr. Dickson Mabon indicated dissent.

Mr. Willis: My hon. Friend shakes his head. He should read paragraph 158—

Dr. Mabon: I am sorry that my hon. Friend was not a member of the Committee, but if he looks at the Committee proceedings he will see that I dealt at length—some would complain that I took too long about it—with the question of why there was this departure from the major recommendation of the Advisory Committee. I did not think it fair to go over all the argument again.

Mr. Willis: I have read the OFFICIAL REPORT of the proceedings. There was a fairly long debate on this point. I did not get a lot of satisfaction from it.
I understand the reasoning behind what my hon. Friend says. I understand that we should not perhaps tie local authorities to the period of 12 years. I realise that local authorities might require a longer period than 12 years. However, I thought that the fact that the Amendment was based on the Advisory Committee's recommendation would be a sufficient argument for it. However, I can see that my hon. Friend is determined not to give way on the Amendment. I do not know why. I should have thought that it was a reasonable Amendment.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: Push it.

Mr. Willis: I do not need to be told by the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) to push. I have done more pushing in the House than he has. I do not need any encouragement from him.
I am sorry that my hon. Friend does not accept my arguments put forward on behalf of the Midlothian County Council. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Willis: I beg to move Amendment No. 17, in page 8, line 32, at the end to add:
'an order made under this subsection shall be subject to approval by both Houses of Parliament'.
This is another attempt to ensure that there is a check on what is done under the Bill. Tremendous power is given to the Secretary of State in subsection (4). I have no objection to giving it to my right hon. Friend, but he will not be in office all the time. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Hon. Members opposite need not bother. My right hon. Friend will be followed by someone on this side of the House.
Subsection (4) provides that
(4) Where, in the case of any regional water board, the Secretary of State considers, having regard to all the circumstances, that it would be unreasonable or inequitable that the methods of calculating the sums to be requisitioned, as required by the two last foregoing subsections, should apply, he may by order modify the requirements of either or both of the said subsections or specify a different method of calculation, and the financial years during which the provisions of the said order are to operate, and in relation to that board in respect of those years the provisions of those subsections as so modified, or, where the said order specifies a different method of calculation, the provisions of that order, shall have effect for the purposes of this section.
I should have thought it reasonable to suggest that the Secretary of State should place an Order of this kind before the House so that it can be debated. These Orders will affect every household in an area. Sometimes a very large area may be involved, affecting many thousands of homes. Public representatives should be able to express their views in public on the merits of the arguments concerning the transitional arrangements if the local

authorities cannot agree. That seems to be a reasonable demand to make.

Mr. Patrick Wolrige-Gordon: I support the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) in the wavering charge which he makes on his Front Bench. The recommendation of the Advisory Committee which was discussed on the last Amendment was not the only recommendation which has not been accepted by the Government. There is concern among many local authorities about what will happen during the transitional arrangements with which the Clause is directly concerned. I support the Amendment, which proposes that the actions of the Secretary of State should be open to scrutiny and that he should give Parliament the chance to consider his proposals.

Mr. Manuel: I am attracted by the Amendment. What must be apparent to everyone is the deplorable lack of opposition by the Conservative Party. This Amendment should have been their Amendment. We were told earlier how scrupulously the Opposition had read the evidence about this, that and the next thing. Here we have a glaring example of how they have missed the opportunity to insert something in the Bill which would control the activities of the Secretary of State. They are always trying to do that, without success.

Mr. MacArthur: If the hon. Gentleman casts his mind back, he will recall that we spent two mornings in Committee debating Opposition Amendments which proposed that we should incorporate in the Bill the recommendation of the Advisory Committee on the rating point. I have always regretted that the Government saw fit to reject them.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Manuel: I recognise that, but it was not on subsection (4) of this Clause. The hon. Gentleman's explanation is a candid admission that the Opposition missed their opportunity in Committee.
I am attracted to the Amendment. I have always argued for greater freedom for local authorities and joint water boards. Acceptance of it would not mean my right hon. Friend and the Minister of State giving up very much, but it would show that, having said so often that we want as much power as possible to be retained in the hands of local


authorities and regional boards, we are now living up to what we said when we were in opposition. I hope that it will be given further consideration.

Mr. Ross: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. There is another hon. Member wishing to intervene. Mr. Buchanan.

Mr. Buchanan: If my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) had been sitting on the opposite benches, I should have been tempted to call this a mischievous Amendment—

Mr. Willis: Surely my hon. Friend does not think that it is mischievous to allow the House of Commons to discuss something which affects hon. Members' constituents?

Mr. Buchanan: That is a double-edged question. I said deliberately that it would be a mischievous Amendment if my hon. Friend had been in opposition. When he was in opposition, his forte was in opposing.
When I first came to the House, I was astonished at the amount of work which we tried to get through. It is difficult to imagine having to debate every Order for an increase in charges promoted by a regional water board. If we did that, we should have to debate every increase in rents proposed by the Scottish Housing Association, and similar subjects. This is a stone which, when thrown into the pool, causes an every-widening ripple. Once we started to debate such Orders, we should not have time to get through the essential legislation which we have to consider. I hope that the House will reject the Amendment.

Mr. Ross: I do not suggest that the Amendment is mischievous. After all my years of co-operation with my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) on amendments and amending legislation, I should be the last to suggest that any amendment which he put forward could be described as mischievousֵ However, in this case, he is departing from the high standard which we evolved when he suggests that any order made under this Section shall be subject to approval by both Houses of Parliament.
Quite frankly, the Amendment is unnecessary. If Parliament approves the Bill as drafted, the normal requisitioning arrangements will be specified in subsections (2) and (3) of Clause 11. It is only under subsection (4) (now subsection (5)), where the Secretary of State considers
having regard to all the circumstances that it would be unreasonable or inequitable",
that the specified methods of calculating requisitions should apply; that is, something drawn to his attention by circumstances in an area.
Quite obviously, under Clause 28(4), an Order cannot be made without the Secretary of State first having consulted the authorities concerned, and, following our contacts with authorities, it is our hope and belief that the authorities in each region will be able to agree among themselves the details of any transitional financial arrangements which may be needed. My hon. Friend made it clear in Standing Committee and at meetings with authorities that the framing of such arrangements is, to a large extent, in the authorities' own hands, and the Secretary of State is not likely to dissent from any scheme which commends itself to all the local authorities in a region.
That being so, and because any such Order must by its nature be providing for a purely temporary financial arrangement, it would seem inappropriate to make it subject to Parliamentary approval. After all, ultimately the Secretary of State is responsible to Parliament in relation to the exercise of powers delegated to him, and, in making any Order under this Clause, he will have regard to the interests of all the authorities concerned in a region within the requirements in the subsection as to what is "unreasonable or inequitable". We should be placing a far more stringent requirement on Clause 11 Orders than on any other type of Order provided for in the Bill, including Orders under Clause 5 in respect of changes in regions, which many people will construe as being much more important.
I hope, on reflection, that my hon. Friend will be assured that not only can he trust the present Secretary of State, but those who may follow him, and I think that he should not press this one.

Mr. Eadie: Since I am a signatory to the Amendment, I feel compelled to make a brief contribution to the debate. If my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) is to be attacked for being frivolous and mischievous, although my right hon. Friend referred to it in a most kind way, it should be pointed out that the Amendment was founded to some extent on the debate which we had in Committee, and I had hoped that my right hon. Friend would take that into consideration.
During the course of that debate, my hon. Friend the Minister of State deemed it necessary to quote from HANSARD. In turn, I would refer my right hon. Friend to column 301, where I suggested difficulties which would arise in getting water committees to come to agreement. I talked about the logic of the situation, and said that it was a strange way for regional boards to get started and then have to sit down and argue about differential rates. My hon. Friend gave us some assurances in Committee, but I do not think that there is anything anti-democratic in an Amendment which suggests that Parliament should have some say on these matters.
Therefore, I wished to be associated with my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East in an Amendment which I thought was a reasonable one and was in no way mischievous. Even at this late stage, at what might be described as the fag-end of the debate, I hope that my right hon. Friend will consider the reasoning and logic behind it.

Mr. Ross: If I might just take up one point to which my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) referred, the question of tyranny or anti-democratic feeling does not arise. The question is whether we think that it is necessary. I have read the debate in Committee. I understand and appreciate that any change in transitional arrangements is important for an area and for the local authorities in it. However, it is there that any discussions must take place and where agreement must be reached. It is because we think that the Amendment is unnecessary that we oppose it. We do not oppose it because we consider it to be mischievous, malicious or undemocratic.

Mr. Willis: My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Buchanan) seems to have missed the point. We are not discussing the activities of local authorities. If we were, I should not want to interfere, having fought for their rights as long as I have. We are discussing the actions of the Secretary of State who considers, having regard to all the circumstances, that an arrangement would be unreasonable or inequitable, and acts upon it. There is only one way that can be checked, and it is not in a town council or joint water authority meeting. It is in the House of Commons. It is for us to check that. If I had been a Member of the Committee which considered the Bill, I would probably have tabled some more Amendments about this procedure. In fact, we might still have been in Committee.
My right hon. Friend chided me for falling below form. I think that he, too, has fallen below form by trotting out the old excuse for every would-be bureaucrat, namely, that they always behave benevolently, that they weigh up the situation and act in the interests of both sides. This is the argument of every bureaucrat. It is an argument used by every official. Everyone in the House knows that we spend half our lives checking the actions of benevolent bureaucrats. We have just appointed an Ombudsman to do this. I do not know whether my right hon. Friend is tired, but he has certainly fallen below standard in trotting out this argument.
It seemed a modest request to make that Members should be allowed to discuss something that the Secretary of State was doing, something which might affect every household in Members' constituencies. I have constituents in Edinburgh and Midlothian. They might all be affected by arrangements made by the Secretary of State. Surely it is not wrong to ask that if he decides to make a different Order—and this is what it says—I should be allowed to say something about it? My electors do not return me to hold my tongue. They return me to express their feelings and their views, and, if I think they are being unfairly treated, to say so. This is why I am returned to this place, and this is what I am endeavouring to do.
However, once again, I can see that my right hon. Friend will not give way on this—

Sir Harmar Nicholls: Push hard.

Mr. Willis: It would be a waste of time—[Interruption.] There would not have been a Scottish Advisory Committee if it had not been for me.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not allow himself to be tempted out of order by interruptions.

Mr. Willis: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but I am so easily led out of order.
I see that my right hon. Friend does not intend to give way on this Amendment, and, therefore, I do not wish to waste the time of the House by voting on it. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Grimond: I beg to move Amendment No. 18, in page 8, line 32, at the end to add:
'in particular he shall have special regard:

(a) to the effect of the new groupings into regional water boards upon the Rate Support Grant payable to the local authorities;
(b) to the rate of grant payable under the Rural Water Supply and Sewerage Acts for new schemes'.
The Amendment raises again a point which I raised in Committee. It arose from a memorandum, supported by very detailed calculations, put forward by the Burgh of Inverness with regard to the possible effects of the Bill on the rate support grant and on grants under the Rural Water Supply and Sewerage Acts. When the matter was discussed in Committee, the Minister of State said that he did not think that the Bill would have the effect upon Inverness-shire which was suggested, namely, that it would very much reduce these grants. He said, however, that if it turned out that such effects might result from the Bill, it was the Government's intention to correct that, and as I understood it he gave an undertaking that local authorities would not suffer any diminution either under the rate support grant, or under grants for new schemes under the Rural Water Supply and Sewerage Acts.
7.15 p.m.
The debate was split between two days, and on the second day the hon. Gentleman said that he had thought some more about the matter, and that possibly it merited further consideration. Since then I have supplied him with calculations sent to me by the Chamberlain of Inverness, and I imagine that he has studied these. I have moved the Amendment in the hope that the hon. Gentleman will both reaffirm the undertaking which he gave in Committee, and explain to the House a little more fully what will be the effect of the Bill when it becomes an Act upon the Rate Support Grant and upon the Rural Water Supply and Sewerage Acts.
It may be that the result of the Bill when it becomes an Act will be that to give effect to the undertaking—that local authorities will not be any worse off—it will be necessary for the Government to amend other Acts, or he may be able to say that he is still of the opinion that the Bill will have none of the effects which are suggested on certain local authorities, principally Inverness.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I am much obliged for the fact that we are able to debate this Amendment again, because in Committee I was pretty certain that the effect would not be what it was suspected it would be on the Rural Water Supply and Sewerage Acts, but I said I was not sure what effect it might have on the rate support grant. The right hon. Gentleman was kind enough to pass on this detailed analysis from the Burgh of Inverness. It is a good illustration, and I am grateful for the work which has been done in preparing it. We have since had time to go through these calculations and get quite clear the effect of the Bill on the rate support grant.
The right hon. Gentleman said that the effect of the Bill would lie in the consideration whether or not to specify transitional financial arrangements in relation to any authority or group of authorities in a regional water board, the Secretary of State would be required not only to consider whether the normal basis of requisition would be, as the Bill has it, unreasonable or inequitable, but also to have regard to the two points he mentions as (a) and (b) in the Amendment.
With regard to the rate support grant, the right hon. Gentleman quoted calculations which purported to show that the


Inverness region that is to say the county and burgh, under Schedule 1, as a whole, would lose a substantial amount of rate support grant after regionalisation, and his concern was that this should not represent a transfer of the burden from the Exchequer to the ratepayers.
I can give an assurance on behalf of my right hon. Friend, that, having this evidence before us, and being able to go into it in more detail, and with more time at our disposal than we had between Committee debates, this is not the case, because under the rate support grant formula expenditure on water supply does not affect the total amount of grant paid in Scotland. But in so far as there is a levelling out of water expenditure charged to the general rate, the effect will be that there will be some redistribution of the total rate support grant among the authorities.
I hinted at this in Committee. I said that this might he a consequence, and the right hon. Gentleman was broadminded and fair enough to admit that there is nothing wrong in the principle of redistribution, since this is one of the main ideas of the rate support grant which is geared to resources, as indeed was the Exchequer equalisation grant before it. Where there is some transferance of expenditure on water from counties to burghs, there could be a reduction in the total amount of rate support grant paid within a region because, in general, burghs tend to attract rate support grant at a lower percentage rate than do counties.
The Inverness example was discussed at the regional meeting of authorities on 30th March. This has brought to light the need for an adjustment in the arrangements made under the Water (Scotland) Act, 1949, governing the part of a local water authority's expenditure which it can charge to its general rate. When we reach Amendments Nos. 68 and 69 we shall no doubt be able to pursue this matter further. The Government Amendments to paragraphs 19 and 23 in Schedule 5 have the effect of enabling a local authority to charge more than the present statutory limit of one-third of its water expenditure to the general rate, and this will have the incidental effect of helping to maintain the level of rate support grant. The relative needs of individual local authorities for

rate support grant have to find their own level under the grant formula.
To summarise, I can now confirm that following discussions with local authorities it is clear that, regionalisation under the Bill would produce no saving to the Exchequer in relation to rate support grant, although there may have to be adjustments, influenced by later Amendments.
As the right hon. Gentleman knows from our debates on the Local Government (Finance) Act, 1966, we have in session a working party on local government finance capable of influencing and restructuring the rate support grant in as much as it does not affect legislation—in this case the Water (Scotland) Act, 1949. We will keep under review the position vis-à-vis individual authorities. I am glad to say that the Bill does not reduce the Exchequer contribution for Scotland.
It is not the Government's intention, either, to reduce Exchequer assistance under the Rural Water Supply Acts. The rate of grant being paid to a local water authority under the Acts is not the measure of transitional financial assistance that it should get from other authorities in the region under the new structure. The right hon. Gentleman may remember the three categories that I described as affecting the position of local authorities in respect of the work they were undertaking as a local authority—work that had been completed, work that was going on, and work that had been approved.
Many small burghs have low water rates and may justifiably have a case for transitional financial arrangements, although at present they do not qualify for grant under the Rural Water Supply Acts because they do not come within the present definition of rural localities. The hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Baker) raised this point, and I suggested that we would look at the question again, administratively, to see if we could adjust the definition in the light of the new regionalisation proposal.
The aim is to try to reach agreement in each region on a fair and equitable arrangement for every local authority—those with low rates and those with high rates—and it would be restrictive to write into the Bill all the considerations to


which the Secretary of State should have regard.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that it is the Government's intention that the Rural Water Supply Acts will be used to enable grants to be made to small burghs which have not qualified in the past but which are facing substantial increases in water rates as a result of this legislation?

Dr. Mabon: In the two-day debate in Committee I was extremely circumspect in what I said about this. I commend to the hon. Member what I then said. I do not dissent from the view of the hon. Member for Banff; it is the view of many people that a review was necessary, because the definition was too close and unfair to small burghs, especially in rural areas where, by the growth of new communities—usually overspill from the towns—there was no case for rural water supply money going, to those people; it should have gone to others in more scattered areas. I suggested that we were reviewing the situation. We have to try to be fair to all. We are considering whether the definition should be changed in cases of unfairness. The question will be taken effectively into consideration.
I have assured the right hon. Gentleman that in general terms Exchequer assistance by way of rate support grant to Scotland will not fall, and that Exchequer assistance under the Rural Water Supplies Acts to Scotland generally will not fall, but the operation of the rate support grant may have effects which will influence the position. The Secretary of State does not dismiss these elements. He agrees that there are two more elements to be taken into consideration in framing the transitional arrangements to deal with the difference in rates as between low-rated and high-rated areas.
We do not want to spell out all the needs and circumstances to be taken into account, because they do not apply to every region, and we could not work out a standard formula to suit every region. We have therefore left the matter in this comprehensive way, without specifying or adding emphasis to any specific points.
I hope that with those two assurances, which I can now give more emphatically

than I could in Committee, the right hon. Gentleman will not press the Amendment. I thank him for putting it down, both in Committee and today.

Mr. Grimond: I have always felt that one danger of the Bill is that we have practically no estimate of its financial effects. Judging by past experience, the cost of water in Scotland will rise considerably.
I appreciate what the Minister has said, but even if the total amount of money supplied by the Exchequer does not fall local authorities are still greatly concerned to know what their individual share of that total will be. In Committee, on 7th March, talking about the rate support grant, the Minister said:
The right hon. Gentleman argues that, somehow or other, the position of Rate Support Grant vis-à-vis a local authority has some relation to its water burdens. However, there is no inverse or direct relationship.
I say that there is. It does have an effect on the general rate. He went on to say:
But there is no intention that it should be so, and, if it were to prove so, the matter could be adjusted."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 7th March, 1967; c. 351.]
I am not absolutely certain how we should read this. I understand that the Minister has slightly altered his position today. In Committee he seemed to be saying that the grant coming to an authority—which is presumably a new authority—would not be affected, but that if it were the matter would be adjusted. He seems now to be saying that the total amount will not be affected but the amount payable to different authorities may be. It may be possible to raise the question again on a later Amendment. It is of great importance to individual authorities to know how they will be affected.
7.30 p.m.
I understand that we have had a categorical assurance that the grants payable under the Rural Water Supply and Sewerage Acts for existing schemes in the course of construction, or for new schemes in the course of construction, or for new schemes, will not be affected. I do not feel entirely happy about this. It is very unsatisfactory that we should leave Scottish local authorities in as much doubt as they are at present about their financial liabilities under the Acts. I am afraid that those liabilities may prove to be greater than some people expect.
As there are to be further Amendments, and in the light of the Minister of State's explanation, which contains some more information for local authorities, and his assurance that at any rate the amount of money supplied by the Exchequer will not fall. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: No. 19, in page 8, line 32 at end add:
(5) For the purpose of making any calculation required by this section, section 12 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1966 (apportionments, allocations etc. relating to local authorities) shall apply as that section applies to section 7(1) of the Local Government (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1963 with the modification that in subsections (1) and (2) after the words 'rate product' there shall be inserted the words 'and the product of a domestic water rate of one penny in the pound'—[Dr. Dickson Mabon.]

Clause 13.—(APPORTIONMENT SCHEMES.)

Mr. Willis: I beg to move Amendment No. 20, in page 9, line 4, to leave out 'have regard to' and to insert 'be based mainly upon'.
The Amendment is a humble effort to put a little meaning into a subsection which at present seems to mean nothing or everything. It arises from the serious concern of Midlothian County Council about this aspect of the Bill. Subsection (2) says:
Such a scheme as aforesaid shall provide for an apportionment between the constituent boards of a water development board of the aggregate amount to be requisitioned from those boards …
In my opinion, it could have ended there, for all the meaning the remaining four lines have.
They simply mean that a scheme has to have regard to the general principle, which means that it can ignore it, accept it or anything else. One may say that one has had regard to it, but, in view of other circumstances, has decided that one cannot take account of it. My hon. Friend should tell us upon what considerations these apportionment schemes will be based. The Amendment suggests that they should mainly be based on the general principle that the amount to be requisitioned from each constituent board
… is to be proportionate to the quantities of water supplied and expected to be supplied to that board by the water development board.

We could even have left out the word 'mainly' and simply required that it should be based upon the general principle.
This is a good principle, which applies to most nationalised boards, that they should pay for what they consume. However, under these apportionment schemes, payment will be made not for the water consumed but on the basis of factors about which we are told nothing. My hon. Friend owes us some explanation of what these other considerations are likely to be. For instance, would one be the distance of a local authority from the source of supply? If so, Midlothian will be pretty well "clobbered" in connection with the Loch Lomond scheme.
The principle is a good one, but, as the Clause is worded, need not be taken into account. I am very suspicious of the words "have regard to" and we ought to have some indication of what factors will be considered when framing these schemes and of why it is not possible to base them upon the amount of water to be supplied or expected to be supplied. That is a reasonable basis for such a scheme and I should like to know why it cannot be done.

Mr. Eadie: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis). We may seem to be rather parochial in forever mentioning Midlothian, but we are fortunate to be connected with the constituency. My right hon. Friend will probably tell us once again that this point was dealt with in Committee, but that discussion has failed finally to impress the representatives of Midlothian and people concerned about the county.
When they contacted us about it, they were specific about what they did not like. They said that the phrase they did not like was "have regard to", and founded their argument very strongly. They said:
We do not think that this is too definite. We think that it is too indefinite and there should be no doubt that the apportionment scheme will follow the principle of uniform charges against constituent boards using water from the Loch Lomond scheme.
They did not express only their own fears, but quoted the Final Report of the Scottish Water Advisory Committee.
In discussing the Bill, we must consider the Committee's findings. Dealing


with this aspect of the financial arrangements, the Committee said, in paragraph 145:
… the water from it should be sold on the basis of a uniform charge to all participating authorities and, second that a method of financing should be found during the early years of the scheme's operation, when only a fraction of its water would be required, so as to ensure that the charges for water necessary to meet the loan charges on the capital expenditure would not be unduly onerous.
Paragraph 146 went on:
… an essential feature of the method of financing the scheme should be that each of the participating authorities should be able to obtain the water it needs from the scheme at the same unit cost and that it would be inequtable that any participating authority should have to pay more for the water simply through being farther away from the source.
We tabled the Amendment, therefore, on a sound basis. It was vital because of the considerable disquiet in Midlothian. We believe that my right hon. Friend is a reasonable man and, therefore, because of the Committee's Report and because the Amendment would give the wording of the Bill solidity, we hope that he will carefully consider accepting it.

Mr. Ross: What really matters is the aim of the Amendment and the effect on the Clause. If the Clause achieves that aim, this gets to the heart of the matter. I do not blame my hon. Friends for being parochial. After all, in matters like this, one must look after the interests of an area, although we all have in mind as well the interests of wider regions and Scotland itself—in whose interests the Bill was brought forward.
My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) said that he might be suspicious and my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) referred to fears which have been expressed. The apportionment schemes will not be drawn up by the Secretary of State, but by the boards. My hon. Friends' authority will be a member of the board concerned. The boards require only the Secretary of State's approval. We could have left it at that, but we have given a useful and desirable general principle on which they can base their schemes.
The words are:
… shall have regard to the general principle that the amount to be requisitioned from each constituent board is to be proportionate to the quantities of water supplied and expected to

be supplied to that board by the water development board.
When a Secretary of State approves a scheme which is put before him, he will consider whether that principle has been carried out. If not, he will want to know why and whether it is being fair or unfair to all concerned. We intend that a water development board, subject to that approval, should have a fair degree of freedom about the form of its apportionment scheme.
The subsection contains the guiding principle to the method of allocation recommended by the Water Advisory Committee. If we put in the restrictive wording of the Amendment, a Secretary of State might have no option but to say "no" to a board with a scheme which had been agreed by everyone, but which departed from this principle in some way. Bearing in mind the guiding principle in the Clause and the duties which a Secretary of State would have to see that any departure from it, whether slight or major, had his attention, I think that my hon. Friends should be satisfied.
Only where an agreed scheme departs from the principle would the Secretary of State not approve of it. It is inevitable that all apportionment schemes will have regard to the principles in subsection (2), because this would, in effect, mean that each board would pay for the water it got or expected to get. Therefore, there is likely to be little difference between the aim of the Amendment and the effect of the Clause. I appreciate my hon. Friend's fears, but I think that they are met by the wording of the Clause and the Secretary of State's responsibility in respect of approval to have regard to this general principle.

Mr. Willis: My right hon. Friend has tried to lure us to accept arguments which are appealing, but they do not overcome our fears. It is precisely because we wanted the schemes tied to the quantity of water supplied or expected to be suplied that we tabled the Amendment.
We did not want freedom to do all sorts of other things. I have asked a number of times for an indication to be given about what other matters might be included. What will be the "other considerations" in the framing of an apportionment scheme? Certainly, Midlothian County Council is worried about


this and wants to know what considerations will be taken into account. My right hon. Friend has not given an indication of these considerations and I trust that he will, even now, give the matter further thought, because there are genuine fears about this matter.
My right hon. Friend used the argument to which we are accustomed; that he is bound to act in the best interests of all the parties concerned. Although we do not wish to tie his hands, we do not see why we should not attempt to do so if he will not tell us how he will act in future. Had my right hon. Friend been frank, and given some examples, he might have allayed our fears, but instead he merely said that he would act in the best interests of all the parties concerned. I still believe that this part of the provision means virtually nothing and that almost anything could be included in an apportionment scheme.
As I have explained, Midlothian County Council will be most dissatisfied any suspicious about this because it feels extremely strongly on this issue. I therefore cannot understand why my right hon. Friend has not been able to allay these suspicions. I can imagine what my right hon. Friend would have said only a few years ago on an issue such as this. I do not wish to start splitting hairs, except to say that this is one of the most wishy washy and meaningless pieces of draftsmanship I have ever come across. I do not want to get too emotional about it. It is obvious that my right hon. Friend does not intend to give way. Having explained the fears of Midlothian in this matter, I trust that between now and the time when the Bill reaches another place he will have second thoughts and will at least supply a few examples of what is meant by "other considerations" because that would at least let local authorities know what to expect.
Having made the position clear, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 17.—(GENERAL PROVISIONS FOR TRANSFER OF ASSETS AND LIABILITIES.)

Mr. Ross: I beg to move, Amendment No. 21, in page 10, line 3, to leave out 'two' and to insert 'four'.
This Amendment is consequential on the two new Clauses, 1 and 2, about the

disposal of assets and the transfer of officers. It means that with the introduction of the new Clauses the reference in subsection (1) to the "two next following sections" should be changed to the "four next following sections".

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 18.—(SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS AS TO TRANSFER OF ASSETS AND LIABILITIES.)

Dr. Dickson Mahon: I beg to move, Amendment No. 23, in page 11, line 25, to leave out 'its' and to insert 'their'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): Would it be convenient to discuss with this Amendment the following Amendments, Nos. 29, 30, 57, 58, 61, 65, 70, 71, 72 and 73.

Dr. Mabon: That would indeed be satisfactory Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I deeply regret that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) is not in his place. In Committee we had an argument over the question of whether or not a "board" or an "authority" in the context of the Bill are collective nouns. I freely concede—and I wish the hon. Gentleman were here to hear me—that in ordinary conversation this is not so. However, it has been normal practice in leglislation for a considerable time to treat the use of the words "board" and "authority" as collective nouns and to use the plural number. The Amendment is designed to make this clear. The Government have taken the long-established option in considering whether to use the singular or plural, and we feel that we should be consistent in this matter.

Mr. MacArthur: I was glad to see this string of Amendments on the Order Paper. Its presence warmed my heart, as it warmed the heart of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart). The Minister will recall that we had quite an entertaining debate on this point in Committee. I am still not altogether happy that the various boards which we are setting up should be regarded in the plural. I remember that when I raised this matter in Committee the Minister twitted me with the fact that my hon. Friends and I had on occasion referred to the Government in the plural. I suggest that if the plurality was ever deserved, the present Government deserve


it. While I am not altogether happy about the use of the word "their" throughout the Bill—because in various parts of the Measure this seems to be a clumsy use of the word—I am in favour of consistency and I therefore urge my hon. Friends to accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Ross: I beg to move, Amendment No. 24, in page 11, line 36, at the end to insert:
(5) Where the authority being a local authority have on or after 1st January 1967 used or have had available for use property of the local authority that property shall for the purposes of section 17(2) of the Act be dealt with in accordance with arrangements made between the board and the local authority.
This Amendment is in accordance with a pledge given to my hon. Friend the Member for Bothwell (Mr. James Hamilton) in Committee. My hon. Friend the Minister of State undertook to table a suitable Amendment at this stage dealing with the transfer of property where a local authority is also a local water authority and where the property is used jointly by various departments of the local authority. This happens in respect of water, roads, drainage and site servicing for housing.
7.45 p.m.
We know that a number of authorities have a single works and engineering department in which plant, machinery and vehicles are held and which collectively serve the various departments of the local authority. In some cases each department may pay a rent for the use of the property and in other cases the property may be owned jointly. The unscrambling of property which is shared may not be easy.
The Amendment therefore provides that where on, or after, 1st January, 1967, a local water authority has used or has had available for use property of the local authority, that property is to be dealt with in accordance with arrangements made between the board and the local authority. We think that local authorities and the boards can be expected to adopt a reasonable and commonsense attitude in reaching a fair settlement and that they will be prepared mutually to accept what I admit is rough justice in this matter. Failing agreement, however, a dispute between the board and the local authority would fall inevitably to be deter-

mined by the Secretary of State or by an arbiter appointed by him under new Clause No. 3.
The operative date for the new subsection is taken as 1st January, 1967, to tie in with new Clause No. 1, dealing with the disposal of assets due to be transferred. New Clause No. 1 will not apply in relation to the joint use of property and it seems right, therefore, that the same date should operate in relation to this interest.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: No. 25, in line 37, leave out subsection (5).—[Mr. Ross.]

Clause 19.—(TRANSFER OF OFFICERS AND SERVANTS.)

Amendment made: No. 26, in page 11, leave out from beginning of line 44 to end of line 7 on page 12.—[Mr. Ross.]

Clause 22.—(COMPENSATION OF OFFICERS AND SERVANTS.)

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I beg to move, Amendment No. 27, in page 13, line 21, after 'employment' to insert 'or loss'.
This matter was drawn to the attention of the Government in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Buchanan) and I said on that occasion that there was no intention that the 1960 Act compensation provisions should in any way be reduced by the Bill. I promised to look into the matter, and that I have done. I thank my hon. Friend for bringing the point to our attention.
It is our clear view that the 1960 Act compensation provisions must be as they are and not in any way reduced. To put the point beyond doubt, the Amendment brings the Clause into line, as my hon. Friend suggested, with the principal Act. It is our hope that the transfer of functions will not result in redundancies or loss of earnings on a wide scale, or even on a marginal scale. However, the possibility cannot be ruled out and it is, therefore, perfectly proper that we should make sure that the compensation provisions are adequate and are not reduced in any way. Once again, I thank my hon. Friend for making his suggestion and trust that the Amendment will meet with the approval of the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 25.—(AGREEMENTS NOT TO BE ENTERED INTO BETWEEN FIRST AND SECOND APPOINTED DAYS BY THE LOCAL WATER AUTHORITY WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE REGIONAL WATER BOARD.)

Mr. Ross: I beg to move, Amendment No. 28, in page 14, line 10, after 'board' to insert:
'or, as the case may be, the water development board'.
This Amendment fills a gap in that the Clause as drafted provides that once a board is established, and until it takes over from the local water authorities, its prior consent will be required before a local water authority in the region enters into certain new agreements or incurs a liability, other than one which is necessary for the day-to-day operations of the water undertaking. Similarly, wage increases are not to be granted without the board's approval, except where they are in accordance with existing commitments or are made at the instance of a wage-negotiating body.
We think it right that local water authorities whose functions are being transferred to a water development board should be required to obtain the consent of that board where they propose to enter into agreements after the first appointed day. The Amendment provides for this.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 28.—(REGULATIONS AND ORDERS.)

Amendments made: No. 29, in page 15, line 29, leave out 'its' and insert 'their'.

No. 30, in line 35, leave out 'its' and insert 'their'.—[Dr. Dickson Mabon.]

Orders of the Day — Schedule 1.—(REGIONAL WATER BOARDS AND THEIR REGIONS, AND THE AREA OF THE CENTRAL SCOTLAND WATER DEVELOPMENT BOARD.)

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I beg to move Amendment No. 31, in page 19, to leave out line 8.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): It will be convenient if, with Amendment No. 31, there are discussed together Amendment No. 32, in page 19 leave out lines 9 to 19; Amendment No.

33, leave out line 21; Amendment No. 34, leave out line 27; Amendment No. 46, in page 21, line 47, at end insert 'Inverbervie Town Council'; Amendment No. 41, in line 50 leave out from 'Council' to end of line 9 in page 22; Amendment No. 50, in page 22, line 11, at end insert 'Laurencekirk Town Council', and Amendment No. 53, in page 22, line 23, at end insert 'Stonehaven Town Council'.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am agreeable to all those Amendments being taken together, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as they all concern the same point.
We come from a relatively placid spell during which we have passed a number of Government Amendments, and I hope that the same may be true about these Amendments to the Schedule, though I think that we may be moving into a slightly different atmosphere. I am sure that I speak on behalf of all those of us who have Amendments of this type to Schedule 1 when I express our gratitude to Mr. Speaker for selecting them, because I think that they are—certainly my Amendments are—identical to those that were moved in the Committee. We then withdrew them in view of assurances from the Minister of State that the points we were making were still under consideration and were, indeed, subject to consultation with many local authorities, and with others outside the House.
This fact merely serves to highlight the haste accompanying the introduction of such a complex Measure covering, as it does, so many different local interests which are very firmly held. The need for further debate and consultation is also stressed by the fact that in the provisions of the Bill there is no room for public inquiry, which means that if we are not successful here in our endeavours this evening—although we may hope that things may happen in another place—this is the last opportunity for discussing the make-up of different regional water boards in Scotland. That makes it all the more important that we should have this opportunity to discuss them further.
The arguments I used on Second Reading and in Committee are known, certainly to the Minister of State, and I shall not repeat them, but I should like to deal with one or two salient points which, I believe, are important, and


which I want to emphasise. The effect of my Amendments is to put the whole of the County of Kincardine into the North-East of Scotland Water Board. The Bill as it stands splits the county in half.
Two other suggestions emerged in our earlier discussions. The first, put forward by the Minister of State, not only in Committee, but in discussions with local authorities, was that the whole of Kincardine might go into the North-East Board, taking that area of Angus served by the Loch Lee Water Board. I never found that suggestion particularly attractive—although the Minister of State may, in principle, have found it acceptable—because it would create in the County of Angus exactly the same anomalies, perhaps on a greater scale but of the same type, as those I am trying by these Amendments to avoid being created in Kincardine.
To try to clear up one set of anomalies merely to run into another does not constitute either a sensible or a logical course of action. As will be seen in col. 476 of the OFFICIAL REPORT, I made this point in Committee. I do not think that this alternative is practical. It does not clear up any of the difficulties that are at present created, but merely transfers them to a different area. I therefore reject that suggestion.
The second main suggestion was that the Loch Lee Water Board might be put under the authority of a water development board. This question has been discussed rather more generally but not exactly as to the form the board would take, so that it was never discussed in detail in Committee. This point of view has been put forward tentatively since the Committee stage in consultations between local authorities and the Department of the Minister of State.
On the other hand, I understand that those consultations have not reached any definite conclusion at all so that it would seem that this alternative has so far not offered any sensible or practical solution. That fact may highlight the very short timetable we have had for working on the Bill. I am not aware, and having spoken on the telephone this afternoon to the Clerk of the Kincardine County Council I know that he is not clear, either, what stage the consultations have reached. I therefore reject the idea, but

not in principle—there is a germ of good in it. However, with the very limited timetable we have to deal with this Bill we cannot consider this as a sensible or practical proposition.
I appreciate the concern of the Minister of State over all these consultations and the opportunities there have been. I would also express my sorrow that I was not able, at very short notice, to attend the meeting in Aberdeen on 29th March. The notice given for that meeting was extremely short—less than a week—and it was not possible for me to attend. On the other hand, I know that the Kincardine County Council has had very full discussions with other authorities in the North-East, and that the Angus County Council at the meeting of 29th March, as my hon. Friend the Member for Banff (Mr. Baker) who attended, will confirm, put forward the county's position very clearly. That is a position in line with what I have tried to put forward before, and which I am again putting forward now.
The interesting thing emerging from the consultations with the Kincardine County Council is that no objections have been raised by the other local authorities in the North-East Water Board—Aberdeen City, Aberdeen County, Banff, Moray and Nairn—to the bringing-in of the southern half of the county into the North-East area. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Wolrige-Gordon) says, most of them welcomed the idea.
That is the attitude throughout the North-East. There has not been any objection from the County of Angus. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) will confirm that there has been no objection to the southern half of the County of Kincardine going into the North-East Regional Board. It is this wide measure of welcome from the other members of the North-East Board, and no objections from the East of Scotland Board that gives me heart in arguing in favour of these Amendments.
The Minister of State stuck very closely in Committee to the principle of source-to-tap—a principle that is embodied in the Bill. It is a principle that it is right to adhere to as far as is possible and practicable. The one thing that has disappointed me is that he stuck far more


closely to the principle in terms of source than in terms of tap. If he wants to stick to the principle he should stick to it all the way. As I demonstrated in Committee—and I will not now weary the House with the arguments I then used—the Schedule as it now stands, with the County of Kincardine being divided into two, constitutes a very clear breach of the principle at the tap end. If the Minister does not accept my Amendments he will still be left with a breach of his sacred principle—a principle that I respect.
Whether the hon. Gentleman accepts my Amendment or maintains the position as it is in the Schedule, there is bound to be a breach of that principle. The Schedule is a breach at the tap and what I propose, as I have freely admitted, would be a breach of the principle at the source. I suggest that it is far better to breach this principle at the source rather than at the tap end when so much of the weight of local opinion supports the Amendment.
In view of the limited time for consultation on this matter and as there can be no public inquiry and as there is to be a breach of the principle anyway and as my Amendment would represent local opinion, not only that of Kincardine County Council, but that of the neighbouring local authorities, I hope that the Minister, even at this stage, will find his way to accepting the Amendment.

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: I want briefly to support what my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) has said. As a representative of Aberdeenshire, which is irrevocably in the North-East Region, whatever happens to the Schedule tonight, I want to re-emphasise that the whole of Kincardine is most welcome to join that region, and we look forward to that day with keen anticipation.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I am very pleased that territorial ambition is still left in the North-East, but whether that will be fully realised by later Amendments remains to be seen.
There is a part of the argument of the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) which I did not follow, although he laid great stress on it. He said that somehow there would be a breach of the principle of

source to tap, if not at the source end, then at the tap end. I will give way if he wants to elaborate on that, but I did not follow that part of his argument.
We are debating the first of a series of three groups of Amendments. I am certain that there would be many more if we gave way on the principle. I know that from my recent meetings with local authorities, when it has been murmured that if the Government gave way to so-and-so, others would insist that we should give way to someone else. In other words, this is not just a debate on a county for whom, I must confess, I have a natural affection, as it is nearly as small geographically as I am—all the more delightful for that—and which deserves consideration by Ministers on that account.
In fact, I have gone out of my way from time to time to serve Kincardine and I am pleased that its representatives were not unduly perturbed when the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns and I fell out in Committee on one occasion. I can well understand their agony that for this purpose the county should be riven in two, and I see the logic of the argument.
The hon. Gentleman said that there were two propositions to preserve the principle of source to tap, one of which we ought not to pursue, namely, the water development board proposition. This was that the Loch Lee scheme should have a water development board serving the North-East Region and the Eastern Region. That is not a proposition which I would rule out. If the Eastern Region combined with the North-East Region, it would be part of the same board. By the way, there is a misunderstanding about the attitude of the Angus County Council, some mistake between Angus and Kincardine, but no doubt it can be ironed out. However, I will come to that later.
I will stick to the argument about the breach of the source-to-tap principle. It is not for the Government to propose that we should take the whole of the Loch Lee scheme from the North-East to the East and put that up as a proposition without having proper consultations. No one has ever suggested this, not even at the meetings held in both regions on 10th March and 29th March.
If the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) reflects, he


will agree that this position is not unparalleled by that in his own county of Perth, although there was no dispute between the Eastern region, Dundee and Angus that they should "lose" the Loch Turret scheme to the Central Scotland Water Development Board. In other words, Perth did not argue that it should retain its territorial integrity in order that the East of Scotland Region should run the Loch Turret scheme, most oil whose water is consumed outside the East of Scotland area. It said that it wanted its territorial integrity, but that the Loch Turret scheme should be run by the Central Scotland Board. This was a perfectly sound and sensible argument which the Government accepted.
8.15 p.m.
If that were the position in this case, I would agree that a water development board might have been a possibility and that the Loch Lee scheme might have been a possibility as a water development board. That is a matter which could still be discussed, although I feel that Angus would not like it. It is a matter entirely for the Angus County Council to discuss with Dundee which, of course, has a vital interest. It is suggested that in order to stick to the principle, if the North-East is willing to include North Kincardine and South Kincardine, it must take part of Angus which is serviced, as the South of Kincardine is, by the Loch Lee scheme.
The County Clerk of Angus is under the misapprehension that we are simply arranging for administrative representation on the boards. In his letter about the position of the county if the Loch Lee Scheme were to be considered as part of the North-East Region, he says:
In view of the harmonious relations which have always existed between the Counties of Angus and Kincardine and, particularly in view of the fact that the Water Authorities in this area honestly wish to make a thorough success of the proposed new Eastern Regional Water Board, I think it can fairly be said that no exception would be taken to a proposal that for administrative purposes the representation of Kincardine County Council should be confined to the North-East Water Board. I personally find it rather difficult to understand what the great advantage would be in having a representation of two Members on a large Board as opposed to representation of one Member on each of two large Boards, but there may be some factors of which I am unaware. Angus County Council, however, cannot agree to any suggestion that if Kincardine are allowed to

have their total representation on the North-East of Scotland Regional Board it must follow that any part of Angus should also be included in that area governed by that Board.
As you will observe from the Loch Lee scheme distribution system in Angus, a copy of which I enclose at the request of the Convener, mains are laid over a greater part of the County of Angus and in many cases happen to be within only a few hundred yards of the mains laid by the existing Burghal Water Authorities".
The County Clerk could not be friendlier. I understand that he wrote this letter in consultation with senior elected members of the council in an effort to meet Kincardine's problems.
But they are problems which are consequential to other people. I have not consulted the City of Dundee, but the minutes of the meeting of 10th March in the City Chambers, Dundee, a meeting of all the members of the proposed Eastern Region with Kincardine County Council representatives present in the form of their Convener, Mr. Saunders, and the Deputy County Clerk, Mr. Wood, show that they said very little while in Conclusion it is recorded:
That the problem of Kincardineshire being under consideration by the Minister, no comment was offered".
It was unfortunate, to put it at its least, that it was left like that, because the East of Scotland Region, like the North-East, ought to have said something to us and should have said whether it felt that it would settle on a water development board with Loch Lee. It would mean that Angus would be buying water from the Loch Lee scheme. It would have to make allocations between the two regions. It is a rather big proposal for a small problem, but it is a possibility and it should have been investigated.
If we were to put the first proposition to Dundee and to Angus, I am certain that they would reject it, not only because it would impose on Angus the territorial agony of being divided, as is the case with Kincardine and other parts of Scotland, but also because it would place additional financial burdens on the other members—Perth and Dundee—in the East of Scotland combination. I am not saying that they should not accept these burdens, but they should have worked them out and decided whether they were for or against them.
I have met Kincardine and the principal authorities in both regions, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is convinced that the original proposal


is the only one he can accept in present circumstances as being fair. I agree that it is not fair to Kincardine, but many other proposals are not fair to other places. It is the fairest my right hon. Friend can get in the circumstances, and he cannot accept these Amendments. We have given much thought to this. There have been many meetings, quite apart from the three I have mentioned. There have been informal discussions. I do not see any way out of it. If we were to give way just for the sake of Kincardine on the source to tap argument, we would legitimately have to give way on a number of others elsewhere in Scotland. That would disrupt Schedule 1 beyond repair.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: The Minister of State has been trying to knock down two propositions which my hon Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) did not advance. My hon. Friend suggested that the County of Kincardine should go into the North-East of Scotland Water Board. This was not an argument with which the Minister of State dealt. The Minister of State dealt with two other propositions—first, that the Loch Lee scheme should be taken out and put into a water development board, and, secondly, that the whole of the Loch Lee source to tap should be hived off and put into the North-East Region.
The second proposal, as the Minister of State suggested, would be totally unacceptable to local authorities in the County of Angus; and there are substantial arguments against it. The objections to splitting Angus apart in this way, because of the nature of the existing systems of supply in the County of Angus, would be more substantial than the objections to splitting Kincardine apart as the Government propose; but this was not the case advanced by my hon. Friend. Nor did my hon. Friend suggest the less objectionable possible solution of hiving the Loch Lee scheme off into a separate development board. I would not be enthusiastic about that scheme, either, but it was not what my hon. Friend suggested.
My hon. Friend said that the County of Kincardine should be moved into the North-East of Scotland Water Board. This is not a proposition to which the County of Angus or any of the local

authorities in Angus would take exception. The Minister of State's answer to this was, by inference, that it would disrupt his rules and principles.

Dr. Mabon: No.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: It was an argument which the Minister of State advanced only by inference. He did not answer my hon. Friend.

Dr. Mabon: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is allowing me to comment on this. The letter from the Angus County Clerk says that there is no objection in Angus to Kincardine's sending its representatives to the North-East of Scotland Water Board and having none on the East of Scotland Water Board. However, that would be a quite intolerable position. As the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) argued in Committee and elsewhere, he regards the Loch Lee scheme as being the principal source of supply. It would, therefore, mean that the representatives of Kincardine on the North-East of Scotland Water Board would be there although their principal source of supply was being operated by another board. That would be nonsense.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I still do not think that the Minister of State has answered the perfectly reasonable case advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns. I have intervened only to emphasise that there is no objection whatever from the point of view of the County of Angus to the proposition of my hon. Friend. There would be objection to the propositions which the Minister of State was answering, but these were not the propositions made by my hon. Friend. I am only too happy to support the Amendments.

Mr. Doig: I assure my hon. Friend the Minister of State that Dundee is emphatically against any alteration in the present set-up of the Board of which it is a part. This matter was carefully worked out by the Advisory Committee to ensure that each unit was viable. If we start taking off bits here, before long we shall be taking off other parts. The arguments advanced in Committee in relation to Stirling, for example, are just as valid as the arguments now advanced by the hon. Member for North Angus


and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith). The moment we start chopping and changing we shall reduce one unit until it is too small for the amount of water available, although another unit may be made too large. This particular part of Kincardine may well be fairly small. I do not know how much water it consumes.
Dundee has carefully considered the way in which this has been drawn up. It is not the way that Dundee wanted it to be drawn up; but Dundee has considered the matter as it was proposed and has accepted it on that basis. If we start chopping and changing now and take bits off here and there, it is feasible that Dundee will no longer want to carry on on this basis.
After all, Dundee stands to lose probably more than any other authority in the region, because it is by far the largest user and the largest supplier. It has a bigger stake than any other authority. Dundee Town Council is absolutely opposed to any cutting off of any part of this area. The council would welcome it if the area were increased. The Report of the Advisory Committee confirms that the amount of water available is much greater than that which will be used. Therefore, Dundee is looking for a bigger area, not a smaller one.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. MacArthur: This debate, and those which are to follow, illustrate the difficulty into which the Minister of State has got himself. Obviously, it was very tempting to my hon. Friends and myself to make a heyday of Schedule 1 from the moment when the Bill was introduced, but the hon. Gentleman, who has been generous in recognising the part which we have played, will be the first to accept that we have behaved most responsibly in this matter.
I am bitterly disappointed, however, at the way in which the hon. Gentleman has handled these Amendments and the matters still to follow on Schedule 1. He will recall that, when we first started our proceedings in Committee, we objected to the haste with which the Bill had been brought before the Committee. We asked for time, but we were denied it. We said that we needed extra time to discuss with our local authorities the fundamental effect which the Bill would

have on their water undertakings and their future. Later, we proposed that there should be a public inquiry procedure under Clause 1 so that points of the very kind put forward tonight could be exposed and debated in public and that any reasonable and responsible challenge to the groupings in Schedule 1 could be made and, I hope, carried through. This, also, was denied us.
Later in Committee, we considered the same Amendment as that which my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) has moved so ably, and others of my hon. Friends, the Members for Moray and Nairn (Mr. G. Campbell) and for Banff (Mr. Baker), as well as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) moved Amendments dealing with local points of grouping principle under Schedule 1. In every case, the Minister, who handled the question most courteously at the time, explained that we need not worry too much—this was the implication—all these matters were subject to negotiation and consultation, and he assured us that he would be having lots of consultations with all the bodies involved.
We accepted that, as did the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland—I think I can speak for him here—and withdrew the Amendments on that assurance. Now, we have the same Amendments before us. Mr. Speaker has been good enough to allow them to be selected because they were withdrawn, in the light of assurances given by the Minister of State, and we sought to reintroduce them. But we now learn, to our dismay, that the consultations have not got very far on this group of Amendments. Indeed, I wonder whether my hon. Friend had any indication at all from the Minister until tonight about the course of consultations so far.
It is extraordinary to hear the Minister say that the county clerk of Angus, for whom we all have great respect, as he has, is under some apprehension. He can be under a misapprehension only if the process of consultation has not gone very far. If the County Clerk of Angus is under some misapprehension, it is not his fault; it is the Minister's fault for not carrying the negotiation and consultation far enough.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for letting me intervene to put this right. I am basing what I say about the county clerk's misapprehension on what the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns has said. The county clerk has got the idea from somewhere that it is only representation that we are talking about. I am taking the hon. Gentleman at his word when he says that there is no objection from Angus. Of course, there is no objection from Angus based on representation, but not based on territorial adjustment. In fact, I do not think that the county clerk is so wrong here. I think that the hon. Gentleman has either misunderstood the county clerk or conversations have gone wrong somewhere, though not with me. I am clear on both sides.

Mr. MacArthur: I gave way to the hon. Gentleman so that he could clear the point up, and I am obliged to him for his intervention. He said that the county clerk was under some misapprehension, and I am glad that he has now made the point clear, because I would not wish to cause him difficulty in this matter.
At another stage, the Minister of State said that these were matters which could still be discussed. This is not the stage at which these matters should still be discussed. They should have been determined long ago, or there should be provision for their open and public discussion in the future. There is no such provision. The hon. Gentleman asks us now to agree to Schedule 1 as it stands. The Bill was rushed into Committee. We had no chance properly to consult our local authorities.
When my hon. Friends and the right hon. Gentleman raised these questions on Schedule 1 in Committee, we were told that there would be ample negotiation and consultation, yet now, on Report, the penultimate stage of the Bill in this House, we find that the consultations have been inadequate. The hon. Gentleman still tries to force us to accept the Schedule as it stands, without any provision for these fundamental matters to be exposed or heard publicly in the future. This is most unsatisfactory.
I have heard my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns put his argument, and it seems to me to be a good one. I cannot say whether, in

the ultimate, he is right or wrong, but it sounds to me like a jolly good argument. The fact that he has had no answer from the Minister is a reflection of the weakness of the hon. Gentleman's position.

Mr. Manuel: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not overheating his mental processes too much. Would he not admit that those consultations have been successful in the main, and have saved a good deal of public money that would have been expended if this course had been followed, and which would have been unnecessary in the majority of cases? There will obviously be exceptions that will need to be hammered out, and we are in the democratic process of doing that tonight.

Mr. MacArthur: We are doing that tonight with a large Government majority, although it has been substantially eroded in the Divisions and the trend is for us and not against us. The fact remains that the Minister, with his majority behind him, is stifling any change. I very well remember in the debate on the principle of the Bill the Minister referring to the Orkney and Shetland question, which will be raised shortly. He gave us hope that there might be some change, and when we came to the Committee stage we believed that a message of encouragement would be given. That message was that there would be consultation, and now we are waiting. Perhaps the Minister will have something to say about that later.
My hon. Friend has advanced his case very clearly and well. If he wishes to divide the House I would say to him that on a matter of principle, because this is the last opportunity we have to debate these issues, my right hon. and hon. Friends and I will go into the Lobby with him.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I wish to answer some points that have been raised in the debate, but, first, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) for his support in the matter, which not only concerns the practical effects on the county of Kincardine, but involves a matter of principle.
I was very interested in what the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Doig) said, which I am sure will be noted in


the County of Kincardine and also in Angus and Aberdeen, which have no objections to the proposals I put forward tonight. I did not like the slightly sinister, "big brother" attitude, which he expressed apparently on behalf of Dundee but I will give the hon. Member the benefit of the doubt. I am sure that the feelings of the citizens of Dundee in this matter are not fully reflected in what the hon. Gentleman said tonight. I hope that that is so.
As my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) said, the Minister completely missed the point in his answer to the debate, because I said that I was not arguing for Kincardine taking half the County of Angus into the North-East area. I rejected that argument and said that I had also rejected it in Committee. I was arguing for the perfectly simple division at the county boundary between Kincardine and Angus, and asked that the County of Kincardine in its entirety should go into the area of the North-East of Scotland Water Board, with no appendage from Angus.
So far as I know—I ask the Minister to deny this if he can—the County of Angus has no objection to that happening. Of course, it has objection to its own county being divided, but that was never suggested, and it was never put forward by the County of Kincardine in its discussions with the County of Angus. All that Kincardine asked for was the reaction of the County of Angus to Kincardine's keeping its entirety and entering the North-East board.
I base my argument entirely on the source-to-tap principle, which I accept, and which has been the basis of so many of the Minister's arguments. I referred to that on 2nd February in the debate on the principle, reported at c. 82 of the OFFICIAL REPORT Of the Committee proceedings. The Minister said that this was something new that was introduced tonight. It was not. I referred to it again in Committee, as reported at c. 476 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Committee proceedings. The hon. Gentleman makes a mistake in thinking that there is only one end to the source-to-tap principle. There are two ends; the source is the beginning and the tap is the other end. I agree

with the principle, but what about the end where the water ceases running and reaches the extremities of the possible limits? I am sorry if the hon. Gentleman did not understand what I meant in Committee, but this was argued at St. Andrew's House with the local authority representatives.

Dr. Mabon: I do not understand this Calvinistic argument. This is a theological argument if there is one. My understanding of the source-to-tap principle is that the Loch Lee scheme supplies the residents of Kincardineshire, not all those in Kincardineshire, and a large number of residents in Angus. It is recorded in our minutes of my meeting with the Kincardine County Council on 24th February that
The constituent authorities"—
that is, Angus and Kincardine—
each reserved their entitlements in advance with the result that when one of them required additional supplies urgently, difficulties arose notwithstanding that the needed quantity of water was available in the scheme. These difficulties would be removed on the introduction of the source-to-tap principle which could provide flexibility within each region.
That was the engineering advice which we were given.
I ask the hon. Member what he means by the tap end. The principle of the source-to-tap supply is a whole principle. If the hon. Member thinks that I have been abusive, that is because I do not understand what he means by the tap end of the source-to-tap principle.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: It is perfectly simple. The Minister has chosen a limit that is arbitrary for the taps. The proposed line dividing Kincardine is utterly artificial; the taps do not end here. Distribution is already taking place aross this line from south to north and in the future can take place from north to south when the Glen Dyl scheme comes into operation. My argument is no more arbitrary than the very intransigent and stubborn line which the hon. Gentleman has taken. If I am Calvinistic about the tap end, he is being extra Calvinistic about the source end. Because of the arbitrary attitude which the hon. Gentleman has adopted, I ask my hon. and right hon. Friends to support me in dividing the House on this proposal.

Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 179, Noes 113.

Division No. 318.]
AYES
[8.44 p.m.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Neal, Harold


Alldritt, Walter
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)


Allen, Scholefield
Gregory, Arnold
Norwood, Christopher


Anderson, Donald
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Oakes, Gordon


Armstrong, Ernest
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
O'Malley, Brian


Ashley, Jack
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Orme, Stanley


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Oswald, Thomas


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Owen, Will (Morpeth)


Barnes, Michael
Hannan, William
Palmer, Arthur


Baxter, William
Harper, Joseph
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Beaney, Alan
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Park, Trevor


Bence, Cyril
Haseldine, Norman
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Hilton, W. S.
Pavitt, Laurence


Bidwell, Sydney
Hooley, Frank
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Binns, John
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Bishop, E. S.
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Pentland, Norman


Blackburn, F.
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Booth, Albert
Hoy, James
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Boston, Terence
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Price, William (Rugby)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Rankin, John


Brooks, Edwin
Hynd, John
Reynolds, G. W.


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n &amp; St. P'cras, S.)
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)


Cant, R. B.
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Rose, Paul


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Coe, Denis
Kenyon, Clifford
Rowland, Christopher (Meriden)


Coleman, Donald
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Ryan, John


Concannon, J. D.
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Sheldon, Robert


Conlan, Bernard
Lawson, George
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Slater, Joseph


Cronin, John
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Spriggs, Leslie


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Lomas, Kenneth
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Loughlin, Charles
Symonds, J. B.


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Luard, Evan
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Thornton, Ernest


Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
MacColl, James
Tinn, James


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
MacDermot, Niall
Urwin, T. W.


Davies, Robert (Cambridge)
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Varley, Eric G.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Mackintosh, John P.
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Dewar, Donald
Maclennan, Robert
Wallace, George


Dickens, James
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Doig, Peter
MacPherson, Malcolm
Watkins, David (Consett)


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Wellbeloved, James


Eadie, Alex
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Whitaker, Ben


Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly)
Manuel, Archie
Whitlock, William


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Mapp, Charles
Wilkins, W. A.


Ensor, David
Marquand, David
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Faulds, Andrew
Mason, Roy
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Fernyhough, E.
Mikardo, Ian
Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)


Finch, Harold
Millan, Bruce
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Winnick, David


Ford, Ben
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Winterbottom, R. E.


Forrester, John
Molloy, William
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Fowler, Gerry
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)



Freeson, Reginald
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Galpern, Sir Myer
Moyle, Roland
Mr. McBride and


Garrett, W. E.
Murray, Albert
Mr. Harold Walker




NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Burden, F. A.
Errington, Sir Eric


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Campbell, Gordon
Eyre, Reginald


Astor, John
Carlisle, Mark
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.


Baker, W. H. K.
Clegg, Walter
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)


Balniel, Lord
Corfield, F. V.
Glover, Sir Douglas


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Costain, A. P.
Goodhart, Philip


Black, Sir Cyril
Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Gower, Raymond


Bossom, Sir Clive
Dance, James
Grant-Ferris, R.


Braine, Bernard
Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Gresham Cooke, R.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt. Col. Sir Walter
Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Gurden, Harold


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Drayson, G. B.
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N &amp; M)
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.


Bullus, Sir Eric
Elliott, R.W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Harris, Reader (Heston)




Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Smith, John


Hawkins, Paul
Maginnis, John E.
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Heseltine, Michael
Maude, Angus
Stodart, Anthony


Higgins, Terence L.
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)


Hiley, Joseph
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Hill, J. E. B.
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Holland, Philip
Miscampbell, Norman
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Hordern, Peter
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Temple, John M.


Hunt, John
More, Jasper
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Iremonger, T. L.
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Murton, Oscar
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Walters, Dennis


Jopling, Michael
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Ward, Dame Irene


Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Kimball, Marcus
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Kitson, Timothy
Percival, Ian
Worsley, Marcus


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Prior, J. M. L.
Wright, Esmond


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Pym, Francis
Younger, Hn. George


Loveys, W. H.
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas



Lubbock, Eric
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


MacArthur, Ian
Scott, Nicholas
Mr. Grant and Mr. Monro


Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross &amp; Crom'ty)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)

Mr. Ross: I beg to move Amendment No. 35, in page 20, line 33, after 'Rutherglen' to insert 'Milngavie Town Council'.

Mr. Manuel: Hear, hear.

Mr. Ross: If my hon. Friend, who represents Milngavie, will restrain himself for a minute, I will explain the Amendment.
It has been brought to our attention that, while the major part of the district of Milngavie Town Council is in the limits of supply of Glasgow Corporation, there is a relatively small part which was taken into the burgh under an extension of the boundaries for which Milngavie Town Council is the local water authority in terms of the Water (Scotland) Acts. The Amendment does not affect the boundaries of the proposed Lower Clyde Region. It ensures, however, that Milngavie Town Council's limited functions as a local water authority are formally transferred to the Lower Clyde Board under the Bill. I am sure that the Amendment will give as much joy to the hearts of patriotic locals in Milngavie as Celtic's achievement of getting into the European Cup Final tonight has done.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Grimond: I beg to move Amendment No. 36, in page 21, line 20, to leave out 'Kirkwall Town Council'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that it will be convenient if Amendments No. 37—in line 21, leave out 'Lerwick Town Council'; No. 38, in line 22, leave out 'Orkney County Council'; No. 39, in line 23, leave out 'Stromness Town

Council'; No. 40, in line 27, leave out 'Zetland County Council'; and Amendment No. 74, which is on a separate sheet of paper, in page 22, line 24, at end insert:


Orkney and Zetland Water Board.
Limits of Supply of:—



Kirkwall Town Council



Orkney County Council



Stromness County Council



Lerwick Town Council



Zetland County Council.


are discussed at the same time.

Mr. Grimond: That certainly will be convenient to me, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I should like to say how grateful I am both to the Clerk's Department and to Mr. Speaker for allowing Amendment No. 74 to be discussed. I tabled it, but it went astray between the Table Office and the printers. There is a small misprint in it in that "Stromness County Council" should read "Stromness Town Council".
It will come as a surprise to many hon. Members that I have tabled these Amendments, which were put down in Committee, because I and I think most Members of the Committee gathered the impression from the Minister of State that he would make an Amendment to the Schedule in respect of the Counties Orkney and Shetland. The Amendments are designed to remove the existing water boards in my constituency from Caithness and Sutherland. Amendment No. 74 is designed to constitute a new water hoard including Orkney and Shetland. We understood at one time that that would be acceptable to the Government.
Not only am I surprised to have to move these Amendments, but rather sad. I take the view that on this sort of matter, which is not party contentious in any way, as representatives of the people we should be able to have a free discussion and that, at the end of it, the weight of argument and reason and the wishes of local people should prevail. In this case, they have not prevailed.
I heard the Minister of State say about the last Amendment that once he began making exceptions to the Schedule, there would be no end to it, and, therefore, he could make none.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I did not say that.

Mr. Grimond: I regard that as being the death of good government. The whole point of politicians is that they should be able to make exceptions, whether they are Ministers or Members of Parliament. We are sent here to amend what appear to be good paper schemes by representing the views of our constituents and also the facts of life and geography. I have found that the test of a Ministry is how far it is able to make exceptions. If it is able to make none, we might just as well leave government to civil servants or, better still, to a computer.
It has been represented to me by the Minister that, in regard to some previous schemes of which we did not approve, he has not received any great complaint from our local authorities. This time, I am afraid that he is receiving a great many complaints. In my experience I have not known an occasion on which all the local authorities of Orkney and Shetland and all those serving on them have been so aggrieved by the conduct of the Government.
I think that I am entitled to read to the House some of the telegrams which have been sent. The first is from Zetland County Council and Lerwick Town Council:
As we await today the arrival of Royal Commission on Local Government Shetland County Council and Lerwick Town Council note with astonishment the proposed terms of the Water Bill to be submitted to Parliament. This prejudging of issue involved is a cavalier disregard of the wishes and argued case of the people of these Islands. We must interpret this as an affront to the members of the Royal Commission as they make their journey to Shetland. This essential familiarisation has not

been undertaken by the Government or the drafters of the Bill. The terms of the Bill display well the complete lack of knowledge and general public will react with implacable hostility to centralisation.
I have received a telegram from Orkney as well. It says:
Confirm having sent following telegram to Doctor Dickson Mabon today: Orkney County Council are bitterly disappointed to learn that despite the impression given at the meeting on 31st March no amendment is proposed to the present form of Schedule 1 of the Water Bill. They wholeheartedly support the views expressed by Jo Grimond in his letter to you of 19th inst. and earnestly urge you to act thereon.
Further, I have received a telegram from Stromness, saying:
Herewith copy of telegram sent to Dr. Dickson Mabon: Stromness Town Council deplore the outrageous folly of the proposal to set up a water authority comprising Caithness, Sutherland, Orkney and Shetland. This decision conflicts greatly with your attitude to the position of Orkney in your discussions with Mr. J. Grimond, M.P., and also at the meeting held in St. Andrew's House on 31st March. The decision to constitute a water board as proposed is obviously an exercise in paper planning with absolutely no regard to the peculiar problems of an island community such as ours or to the geography of the area. My Council strongly urges you even at this late hour to reconsider the matter and make the necessary amendments to the Water (Scotland) Bill.
We have done all that we can to try to accommodate the Government. Not even the Minister of State will suggest that I have been unreasonable at any time during these proceedings.
The local authorities were asked first of all to agree to an amalgamation within the counties. They agreed to that. Now they have agreed to an amalgamation between the counties. Throughout, these negotiations have not been about how the Bill can be amended to meet the needs of local people, but how it can be amended so that the Scottish Office can preserve the Bill as near as possible to its original form.
I feel bound, once again, to go over some of the facts of the situation. Orkney and Shetland are two groups of islands, and that cannot be reiterated too often. That fact alone makes them an exception to the rest of Scotland, whether the Minister likes it or not. It justifies an exemption in their administration. They are surrounded by great stretches of sea. Is it realised in the Scottish Office that


from the north of Shetland to Caithness is as far as from London to York? The Government apparently accept that Ross and Cromarty is too far from Caithness, yet one can motor to Caithness and back in a day. Would even the Scottish Office suggest having a water board covering an area from London to York, and across the sea? It is facts of this sort which justify an exception, yet they appear to have been ignored.
9.0 p.m.
It is agreed that Ross and Cromarty should have a separate board, though this area is actually contiguous with Caithness and Sutherland. It is possible to pipe water from one to the other, to drive up there and back in a car, or to go by train, but there are no steamer connections between Caithness and Shetland, and only yesterday the Local Government Commission was stuck in Orkney. It is all very well for hon. Gentlemen opposite to laugh, but we are setting up an organisation in which many people will constantly be stuck in these places because of weather or because there are no seats available on aircraft, and to local people in my constituency this is not a laughing matter. On the principles laid down in the Report we should have separate authorities. It is said that the factors which should determine what authorities are set up are physical ones, but these have been ignored, and so have the wishes of the people of Orkney and Shetland.
Where is the new headquarters of the water board going to be? We have no natural communications with Wick. There is no piping of water to Caithness, and, if the board is to be set up, the obvious centre is Kirkwall. There is at least a steamer connection between Shetland and Orkney, but there is none between Shetland and Caithness. It is possible occasionally to go from Shetland to Orkney, attend a meeting there, and get back in one day, but to attend a meeting in Caithness one has to be away for three days, and perhaps much longer if one cannot get a seat on a plane, which is extraordinarily common.
Where we are on the map does not matter for all purposes. Surely the Scottish Office knows that our connections are with Aberdeen, and to some extent Inverness. We have our own

county council, and in this we differ from the Western Isles. Not in history, nor in tradition, nor in language are we the same as the Highlands. We are not being joined to the people with similar problems. We have different traditions and different local authorities, but all this is being cast aside as of no importance. If this proposal is going to be steam-rollered through, at least Kirkwall and not Wick should be the headquarters of the board.
It seems that in the minds of Ministers uniformity is all important, but look at what the Government are doing to Scotland. They are setting up innumerable ad hoc bodies with different boundaries. For hospital purposes we have to go to Aberdeen. For the Crofters Commission and the Highland Development Board we go to Inverness, and now we may have to go to Caithness. What is the purpose of this, especially in front of a Royal Commission which has to unscramble all this?
I am indebted to an hon. Gentleman opposite for pointing out that it was a conclusive reason against putting Skye in the Western Isles constituency that its communications ran the other way. Communications between Skye and the Western Isles are a great deal easier than those between Caithness and Shetland.
What is obvious on the facts of history and geography, and on local feelings, is that there is no case whatsoever for this amalgamation. However, in an effort to make less nonsense of the whole thing the local authorities agreed that there should be one board between Orkney and Shetland. There is some sense in this, because there are sea communications, and it is possible occasionally to attend a meeting in one county and get back to the other in much less time than it takes to get from either of them to Caithness. Further, we share the same problems. We are islands, and groups of islands, and it is this fact which creates our problems.
I think that a very disturbing feature of this whole matter is that the Government have made no effort to justify their proposals in terms of what good they will do to ordinary people. The disadvantages are plain. Most of our water schemes are finished. We do not want a great advisory staff. It is certain that this will greatly increase the cost of our water supply. It


is very curious that the Government suddenly, and rather late in the day, have put forward the view that the Northern fire services are satisfactory. I wonder whether they realise the position. They are trying to encourage economy in the country in general and have brought in S.E.T. to try to squeeze people out of the service industries.
They say that the Northern fire services are satisfactory, but do they realise that, whereas the cost of the fire brigade before the new arrangements were made was about £200 a year in Shetland, in the first year of the new arrangements the cost rose to about £545—and I do not complain about that—and that today Shetland's contribution is £9,000 a year. This is one-sixth of the total cost. This example is being held up by the Government—in this year, when everybody is supposed to economise—as being an example that should be followed.
I feel I have been misled about this matter. I got the impression throughout the previous proceedings that exceptions would be made and Amendments would be put down. I want to remind the Minister of some of the things that he said. In the Second Reading debate I was told that I would be very happy with what the Minister had to say. In Committee—admittedly among other things—he said:
It is right to say that the islands are exceptional … while I see the point about the position of the islands, it is not fire or police that we are dealing with but a service which is essential y a physical one.
That is true.
The Minister went on:
I should like the right hon. Gentleman to accept our good faith in this matter. Let us attend the meeting on 31st March and have this discussion, and let us see if we can consider Amendments affecting Shetland, Orkney and Caithness and Sutherland, which we shall have the opportunity to do on Report.
Later he said:
We shall then be in a position to estimate what kind of amalgamation we can make in this part of Scotland, which is in a different situation from that elsewhere".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 16th March, 967; c. 489–91.]
It became clear as time went on that entirely new objections were being put up. First, it was not pressed that we should form one water board in Orkney and Shetland. Later on it was. We did not think that it was a good idea, but we accepted it. It was never sug-

gested at any point in Committee that one essential, if Orkney and Shetland were to be separated from Caithness and Sutherland, was that Ross and Cromarty should come in. Why it should be thought that a good reason for making a mistake about us was that the Minister had been unable to make a mistake about Ross and Cromarty I do not know. Why should we suffer because Ross and Cromarty—doubtless for good reasons—refused to go in with Caithness and Sutherland?
It is clear that when the Minister spoke to us of a compromise he meant a compromise which would suit the Scottish Office and would enable it to keep the Schedule intact. It is clear that he was not talking about a compromise which would give a better water supply to our people, or a compromise which would meet their desires. He may have had that wish at the back of his mind, but more and more his argument has been that he cannot make any exception in the Schedule, and that it does not matter who has to suffer so long as he gets the Schedule through Parliament. He would like to do it with good will, but if he cannot get the good will he will do it somehow in any case.
It is monstrous to expect Orkney and Shetland to help out Caithness and Sutherland and to contribute towards the cost of a large headquarters on the mainland. It is no good his telling us that there will be a travelling committee in the area. It will probably be extremely expensive, and there will be little purpose in it. There will not be a saving in the number of officials, with 100 miles to go across the sea—and Caithness has an extremely high water rate.
This is making a farce of local democracy. It is simply throwing out of the window all the concessions offered by our local authorities. It will be possible, of course, at some future date, to alter the Bill, but unless the hon. Gentleman can show that he is willing to do this, I do not know how he can expect continual co-operation from local authorities which have fallen over backwards to meet arguments from the Scottish office which have very little bearing on what I regard as the important thing, serving the people whom the local authorities and I represent.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: The speech of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) showed an extraordinary lack of perception about the problems in the North of Scotland and was unjust to the Minister of State's efforts to obtain an accommodation in an extremely difficult situation. I was astonished that he should say that the local authorities of Shetland and Orkney are satisfied with his Amendments. The widest publicity was given in the North of Scotland to the objection of the County of Zetland to the compromise proposal which was hammered out at a difficult meeting held by the Minister of State at St. Andrew's House on 31st March.
The right hon. Gentleman's proposal is an absolute nonsense, in that it concedes that geography is not the most important question by proposing to link the Islands of Orkney and Shetland, which are separated by 90 miles of water, and taking exception to the linking of Orkney and the mainland, which are only 15 miles apart. Geography is, of course, important in the North of Scotland, but it is by no means the prime consideration. The argument has been repeatedly stated—the right hon. Gentleman appears to have failed to grasp the point of the Bill—that the benefit of skilled technical advice will be available to people in the entire area of the water board.
I am astonished that a member of the Liberal Party should be so satisfied with the status quo, especially in the Highlands, where so much needs to be done, and that he is content with the water supply as it exists and does not envisage any industrial development which will require new water supplies or expanded water services. In my constituency, such hopes are held out. Anything which will make the provision of these water services more efficient and workable is welcome.
The meeting in St. Andrew's House, which we all attended, illustrated the Minister of State's patient approach to the areas set out in the First Schedule. Each authority, in turn, was asked for its views and, at the end of the day, we appeared to have reached an acceptable compromise—with the exception of Caithness, which made its opposition clear immediately for very good reasons, which it gave in evidence to the Scottish

Water Advisory Committee, and which formed the basis of the Committee's recommendations on which the Bill is based.
It is extraordinary that the right hon. Gentleman has not even turned to the reasons given in that Report for so grouping these counties. After this meeting, at which it appeared that an acceptable compromise, with the exception of Caithness, had been worked out, it was then put to the local authorities concerned, and one by one they rejected it. If we are to accommodate local democracy in the way which the right hon. Gentleman suggests, I fail to see what more could have been done.
Simply because the right hon. Gentleman has not had his way on the Bill is no indication that the normal processes of consultation have not been carried through. Each point he made has been argued time and again—on Second Reading, in Committee and at the meeting to which I have referred—and these arguments failed to persuade the local authorities concerned.
9.15 p.m.
The proposal that Orkney and Shetland should form a separate authority concedes that geography is not the key, but there are other points which are unacceptable about the proposal. One is that it is numerically far and away the smallest proposed board, with probably the smallest rateable value. I question whether it would form a viable financial unit. It is well known that one of the problems of the most northerly counties is attracting skilled technical advisers and local authority staff. The right hon. Gentleman knows this and it is disingenuous of him not to have mentioned it.
But the position in Caithness is special. It has an advanced water set-up, in terms both of development and of the services of the skilled men available. No fewer than four people are specially engaged to look after the supplies of water. This is the clear nucleus for a water board for the whole northern area.
The right hon. Gentleman tried to suggest that there was a peculiar and special reason, because they are islands, which made their problem somehow different from that of the rest of Scotland. But the Bill provides not only for the association of Skye with Inverness in one


authority, but also for the association of Lewis with Ross and Cromarty and for the association of Bute with Ayrshire. These are all islands associated with the mainland. What is irrational about that?
The right hon. Gentleman said that they do not have a separate county council. That may be so, but it is an entirely different question. It is related to the structure of local government and has nothing to do with insularity. It appears that the right hon. Gentleman is trying to have the best of half a dozen different arguments at the same time, and his remarks make absolute nonsense.
Caithness has made it clear from the beginning that it has the nucleus of a water service which could form the foundation of a successful unit for the entire North of Scotland. Sutherland was prepared to accept the compromise proposal which was before the meeting in St. Andrew's House. However, the problems of Sutherland are somewhat different because if one is to apply the source-to-tap principle, which was the subject of so much debate on an earlier Amendment, then this area supplies part of Ross and Cromarty. It is regrettable that Sutherland could not go in with Ross and Cromarty. That simply stems from the fact that Ross and Cromarty is unwilling to be so associated. However, I would deplore any action by my right hon. Friend to force Ross and Cromarty into unwillingly going in for such a regional unit.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is getting rather wide of the Amendment.

Mr. Maclennan: With respect, Mr. Speaker, this is a consequential point flowing from the fact that we are discussing the Northern regional board.

Mr. David Steel: rose—

Mr. Maclennan: As I was saying—

Mr. David Steel: Give way.

Mr. MacLennan: I am addressing myself to the point made by Mr. Speaker. The effect of removing Orkney and Shetland from the Government's proposal would have a substantial effect.

Mr. David Steel: Why does the hon. Gentleman think that it would be deplorable for his right hon. Friend to force

Ross and Cromarty into a board, but that it would not be deplorable to force Orkney and Shetland in the same way?

Mr. Maclennan: The proposal that Ross and Cromarty should be set up as a separate board was contained in the recommendations of the Scottish Water Advisory Committee. It makes absolute sense as it stands and it would be unnecessary, from the point of view of efficiency, size, geography or anything else to try to alter—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This confirms Mr. Speaker in his belief. We are not at the moment discussing Ross and Cromarty.

Mr. Maclennan: I appreciate your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, and I will conclude by congratulating my hon. Friend the Minister of State on his patience in listening to this argument being adduced by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland on so many occasions. The right hon. Gentleman has absolutely failed to confront the financial problems that would ensue for Orkney and Shetland if the Amendment were accepted.
The Minister of State has done his best to accommodate the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman has failed only because the local authorities concerned do not find the proposal which he is making tonight acceptable. In these circumstances, my hon. Friend has had no alternative but to fall back on the original scheme put forward by the Scottish Water Advisory Committee.

Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie: I regret the tone of the speech of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan). My right hon. Friend has represented Orkney and Shetland for many years and is only too well aware of the problems of the area. We are all sent here to represent our constituencies. The hon. Gentleman spoke as though my right hon. Friend had no business to put forward the views of his constituency, but I am glad to say that that has not been the view of the Minister of State.

Mr. Maclennan: Is the hon. Gentleman referring to the views of the Orcadians or the Shetlanders, remembering that the views of those two counties


on this matter appear to be quite different?

Mr. Mackenzie: My right hon. Friend has put forward the views of the people of Orkney and Shetland. He has every right to do this and I stress that the Minister of State has taken an entirely different view from the hon. Gentleman and has tried to arrive at a reasonable solution in dealing with this matter. These problems are difficult to solve. We are considering an unwieldy area and must, if we are to get anywhere, consider these difficulties in a calm and deliberate way, leaving personalities aside.
I suggest that a mistake has been made from the outset. I am not saying that the present grouping is as it should be. The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland seemed to indicate that there are no problems peculiar to the islands. Perhaps he has never lived on an island. I spent the first 15 years of my life on an island, and I know that islands still have peculiar problems today notwithstanding the progress we have made in communications.
There is still time to look again at this grouping. Ross and Cromarty is very happy about the present situation. Sutherland is very anxious to come in with Ross and Cromarty. I personally would be quite happy to see that happen, as we have the amalgamation of the police forces and various other things coming along. In my opinion, the best grouping would be Ross and Cromarty and Sutherland. Caithness and Orkney, and Shetland, 100 miles across the sea, should have its own water board. I am quite convinced that that would be a better arrangement than is now proposed.
I support my right hon. Friend, and I implore the Minister of State to look again at this matter before the Bill reaches the Statute Book.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: I support the Amendment moved by the right hon. Gentleman the Membr for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond). Having heard him make his case in the Grand Committee on the Second Reading of the Bill, I am amazed that the Government are still trying to push through the Schedule entirely unchanged in this respect. The Minister of State

himself intervened in that Second Reading debate to say that the right hon. Gentleman was making a good case, but has so far taken no notice of that case in anything he has done.
The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) has told us how patient the Minister of State has been and other hon. Members have said how accommodating he is, but the trouble is that there are no results from his being patient and accommodating and, though he may listen, there has been no change in the Schedule—

Mr. Manuel: rose—

Mr. Campbell: No, not now—I shall be very brief. I will give way in a moment.
The Government do not seem to be able to adapt their schemes to the geography of the North of Scotland, and particularly to these two groups of islands. Whether they are wedded to having 13 regional boards—a mystical number—I do not know, but in this case it seems that there could be no harm to the Government's proposals as a whole if the number were increased to 15. There is no particular merit in sticking to the 13 regional boards proposed.

Mr. Manuel: The hon. Gentleman will, I hope, believe that I know something of the Highland problems. The point I cannot get over is this. The Minister of State called this meeting at St. Andrew's House, all these delegates arrived, there was a long discussion, and a compromise agreement was reached. It was then ratted on. Does the hon. Gentleman think that that sort of thing can be repeated time and again? How often should the Minister of State do that, and could he have any faith that the delegates would not later disagree what they had agreed at previous meetings?

Mr. Campbell: I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is concerned with Highland problems but, as I learned of it, the compromise agreement in this case was the bringing in of Ross and Cromarty. There is no reason why the Government should have stuck to 13 regional boards, and on any change being decided they must bring in yet another large area to join with Caithness and Sutherland. What has been called a compromise was


a completely new proposal involving the bringing in of yet another of the regional boards which would otherwise have been separate.
My point is that these islands create a special problem. The Government seem to be quite unaware of these problems of geography, communications, travelling and representation which the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland has lucidly explained. That is why I do not accept the mention of this as a compromise. The Government should have been prepared to allow an extra board or two boards in the North of Scotland and not tried to stick to the same number. I hope that it is still not too late for the Governmen1 to change their minds.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. David Steel: I speak on this matter without any profound local knowledge, but, as a Member of Parliament for another part of Scotland, I am concerned with the principle which is here involved and which should give all hon. Members cause for grave anxiety. Here is a case when the elected Member of Parliament for a particular constituency and the local authorities within that constituency are unanimously agreed on one point of view.

Dr. Mabon: Dr. Mabon indicated dissent.

Mr. Steel: They have agreed on a compromise. They have agreed to come together in one board, even though they did not want that at the outset.
When I was in Orkney in January, as the guest of the local Member of Parliament, I was buttonholed by local authority representatives and newspaper editors and others about the Bill before it had got to Committee and when it was not causing any great controversy in my constituency. I was asked what I as a Member of Parliament unconnected with Orkney and Shetland would do about it. I can assure the Government that there was very strong feeling at that stage before the matter had been even fully discussed.
I have had cause to complain to Scottish Ministers before about the increasing tendency of the Government to ignore the obvious interest of a Member of Parliament in Government decisions which affect his constituency and the part

which Members of Parliament, regardless of party, must play in being answerable to their constituents for what happens in the House. Here we have a most blatant case of a kind which has never happened in my constituency, but we should be gravely concerned about letting this go through in case it happens to us. Which of us is to be next?
I suppose that most hon. Members have had the letter signed by the Vice-Convenor of Zetland and the Senior Baillie of Lerwick Town Council in which they point out that to attend a daytime board meeting in Wick from Shetland involves an absence of two nights and three days. Quite apart from the administrative costs, they ask:
where are the members prepared to serve in these circumstances?
This is a valid point. They go on to say that they have offered to combine to form one water board and they dispute the need for and dread the cost of any larger combination.
They end the letter—and this is the point which concerns me—by saying:
We protest at the manner in which the administration in the name of Parliament rides rough-shod over minority populations, ignoring their requirements and arguments. This appears to be an example of bureaucracy usurping the dignity and duty of Parliament and we appeal to you to oppose this measure thus obtruded and forced upon you.
I am prepared to give any amount of appreciation to the Minister of State for the fact that he has had meetings to meet these points, but at the end of the day something is being done against the clearly expressed wishes of the local authorities and Member of Parliament for the area.
I draw the Minister's attention to the conclusion of the first leader in the Scotsman this morning, which followed our debate yesterday on the way in which the Government's regional policies were being pursued. The leader said:
It is a profound mistake to think regional regeneration is a technical planning operation for experts, with the advice of some nominated amateurs. It is a political task, most likely to be efficiently performed by enlisting the enthusiasm and creative enterprise of those who feel greater urgency about improving the country or region in which they live than do distant politicians and officials".
I accept that there can be cases and have been cases in the past and will be


cases in future when one Member of Parliament may be grinding his constituency axe, or when a group of local authorities may be grinding their axes against the national interest, but when a Member of Parliament and the local authorities are joined together to make strong representations to the Government about how Government policy should be applied, when there is a conflict of interest, there is a very great burden on the Government to show that it is most strongly and clearly in the national interest not to accept the advice of the local people. A very clear burden of proof rests upon them, not a marginal, but a substantial balance of argument. If hon. Members from other constituencies let this go through, we do not know what will happen to us next.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I am obliged to you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me to reply to the debate thus far. The last two speeches, coming from intelligent Members who take a very active part in Parliament, have shown a terrible ignorance of what has gone on. I am sure that they would not have said what they have said if they knew all the facts as I hope to disclose them now. I do not hold anything that they have said against them, because I know that they spoke without full knowledge of what has gone before.
The idea that I met the local authorities concerned, that they wanted the solution, and that the Government wickedly denied them it, is a piece of nonsense. When we held the meeting on 31st March in St. Andrew's House the representatives of five county councils and of the burghs attended. Not all the burghs from the different counties were individually represented. There were representatives from the counties of Shetland, Orkney, Caithness, Sutherland and Ross and Cromarty. The Members of Parliament were invited. I made a specific point that the Members of Parliament would attend this meeting. We discussed in this case, not just one item which was Schedule 1 to the Bill, but other matters. The meeting began for me at 10 o'clock in the morning. I did not finish with the county of Shetland until twenty minutes to seven that night.
On the Bill we took from 10 o'clock in the morning to twenty past one. Later

on we discussed some consequences of it. I do not say this merely to boast. I say it to show the immense attempt which was being made, I thought by everybody at the meeting, to get a compromise. I realised that we should not get a unanimous compromise. We did not.
What did I promise the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond)? I said this in Standing Committee:
When we had the meeting in St. Andrew's House to discuss this matter"—
I should say that, following the publication of the Report of the Water Advisory Committee in October, in December we had the meeting I am now referring to with the local authorities—
there was one representative from Kirkwall who made this point to us.
That is the right hon. Gentleman's case.
I invited the authorities to send us any representations which they had to make.
I asked them to do this quickly. One of the few authorities which took this matter up was Dundee. This was on the issue which affected the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) and others in the east of Scotland. I said to the authorities that if any were dissatisfied with my proposal they should write to me and a meeting would be arranged. Thereafter, the right hon. Gentleman made his point in debates. I was always sympathetic. The right hon. Gentleman has quoted some of the things I said.
I said to the right hon. Gentleman later:
That is my difficulty. If I accept Amendments to the Schedule without having consulted properly all the authorities involved in the consequences of the Amendments. I am not being fair to them, any more than I should be by an outright refusal to listen to anyone's case other than what is proposed in Schedule 1.
On previous Amendments we have debated the consequences on several counties, not just on the one county. In this case we are debating not just five counties but the burghal authorities in the five counties. I give the right hon. Member credit for this. In Committee he was able to assure us that the authorities in Orkney and Shetland would each unite into one region. This is remarkable. Let me read an extract from the Final Report of the Scottish Water Advisory


Committee. The Report says this in paragraph 81, speaking about Orkney and Shetland:
We can see no need for two separate local water authorities in Zetland where the total population is under 18,000, or for three authorities in Orkney for a combined population under 19,000. Apart from this, in Orkney the County Council shares a source at Kirbister with the Town Council of Kirkwall but there is no co-operation between them and they have separate pumping installations on the Loch. Further, the County Council's piping passes close to the burgh boundary of Stromness and integration of these two systems would prevent no difficulty
In other words, according to this Report, dated October 1966, there were difficulties in getting union in Orkney and difficulties in getting union in Shetland.
I give this credit to the right hon. Gentleman, that, as a consequence of our discussions and, no doubt, his own effective influence on his local people, he was able to convince them that they should take the first step, to unite the islands—Orkney within Orkney and Shetland within Shetland. I paid due regard to this in my final comments on 16th March.
Referring to the meeting arranged for 31st March, I went on to say:
I have taken the liberty of asking the hon. Members for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) and for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie) to join the right hon. Gentleman and myself, and I have asked the respective water authorities to send their representatives to that meeting. If I am to accede to the right hon. Gentleman's request that it should be Orkney united and Shetland united, I ought to agree to it if I am so convinced at that meeting and confident that some arrangement can be made for Ross and Cromarty and for Caithness and Sutherland.— [OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 16th March 1967; c. 489–90.]
We entered the meeting, therefore, with Caithness in favour of Schedule 1, with Sutherland in favour of joining Ross and Cromarty, with Ross and Cromarty in favour of Schedule 1, and with Orkney and Shetland in favour only of joining together, not together as Orkney and Shetland but only as Orkney and as Shetland. At the end of the meeting, the representatives there concerned, subject to ratification by their own county and burgh authorities, agreed on a compromise. Four counties and most of the burghal authorities agreed on this compromise, and I assented to it although I said that it was the second best arrangement. The Government's view was that

this was not the best way, that it was second best, but we would accept it for the sake of harmony.
The one dissentient was Caithness, which was extremely angry that I had offered the compromise with the other authorities. The compromise was that Shetland and Orkney would combine, and that Caithness, Sutherland and Ross and Cromarty would merge.
I have here a list of all the letters I received. What happened? First, Shetland repudiated the whole agreement. I do not blame the Shetland deputation. I have no doubt that every member of it did his best to convince his respective authority that it should accept the compromise. But they failed, as, no doubt, we would have failed as individuals trying our best in the same position. I blame no one at the meeting, and I am sure that they all went home and did their best to convince their fellows of the sense of it. But the fact is that Shetland repudiated the whole agreement.
The matter goes further than that. There has been a reference to the letter of 24th April from the vice-convenor of Zetland. I draw attention to this passage in it:
The Shetland Isles, or the County of Zetland, lie well over 100 miles by sea off the Scottish mainland, and the plan to include them with any part of Scotland for water supply purposes is ridiculous.
Thus, even if I were to accept Amendment No. 74, the right hon. Gentleman's own Amendment, I should not be agreeing with the County of Zetland.
The suggestion of the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie) was that Orkney should join with Caithness, Shetland being left alone, and Sutherland should join with Ross and Cromarty. But Ross and Cromarty wrote to me to say otherwise. I know that Captain Matheson, who led the Ross and Cromarty deputation—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree—did his very best to convince his compeers of the sense of the compromise, but, nevertheless, Ross and Cromarty wrote to me to say that they could not agree to fuse even with Sutherland, never mind Caithness. This was confirmed by the burghs of Ross and Cromarty.
I am not arguing their case, because the Water Advisory Committee put up a good case for union of the burghs within


Ross and Cromarty and the county council. The Government do not dissent from that. We think that it is a sensible and sound proposition, considering the possible future need for greater water supplies in that county. But even the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion tonight has been repudiated by his own county. I do not blame it, but that is the position with which a Minister is faced. It would seem that one cannot please all the people, or even the majority of the people, in this situation. The only counties that are satisfied are Ross and Cromarty and Caithness. Orkney and Shetland are feeling very aggrieved that they are to be combined with each other, never mind with Caithness and Sutherland.
9.45 p.m.
I do not want to go over the arguments in Committee time and time again. I concede that we could have made various compromises, but they must be viable so that the water service staff available in the area are used to the best advantage. Zetland is a good authority which still has many water schemes to do. It relies on consultants in Edinburgh. Orkney and Sutherland employ consultants in Glasgow, Caithness employs one in London, and the small burghs also employ consultants. Taking only water schemes which qualified for rural grant since the end of the war, one finds that about £250,000 has been paid out in consultants' fees. Inverness-shire, which spent about half the amount of the Northern authorities on water, has, because of its strong local engineering organisation, been able to design schemes itself without help from consultants.
One effect of combining the northern authorities would be to reduce their dependence on consulting engineers, since there would no doubt be a regional engineering unit based on the headquarters, whether in Wick or Kirkwall is entirely a matter for the local authorities themselves. There are savings that can be made. I was misrepresented in one way when somebody said that I did not seem to give a damn for the amount of money it would cost. That is not true. I have never pretended to the Committee or to any Members that the Bill would save money, that it would reduce water expenditure. I said that we had to use the present water expenditure to get better

value for money, particularly in the proper use of professional staff. I am backed up in that by the Institute of Water Engineers and the British Waterworks Association and other organisations that do not have local government connections and vested interests.
The burden does not fall on the Government to show why we have not changed our minds. We tried to do so; my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State told me that if I could get a compromise agreement acceptable to the majority of authorities we would change the Schedule, because we would not be breaching the kind of principles about which we talked earlier or about which we shall talk later. That was the one hope that I had, and I made an offer which was denied me by every authority present. The only authority remaining consistent to its view was Caithness, which opposed a compromise and supported Schedule 1. That was why my hon. Friend made the speech he did tonight.
I shall not refer to everything that the right hon. Gentleman said tonight. He has a difficult task, representing as he does such diverse counties. But we cannot escape the fact that there is an unfortunate antagonism in that part of the world, apparently centred on Caithness. I do not know why, and I wish that it would die and that the proposed unions would function well. I think that the fire service worked well, based on Inverness, and fire and water are not all that different when it comes to administration.
I do not accept the analysis of the figures given by the right hon. Gentleman. If there is any complaint about the northern fire service let us investigate it, but the right hon. Gentleman's party is supposed to believe in elected regional government, and it seems extraordinary to me that the Liberal Party is not prepared to support the Government in the regional efforts they are making. They have agreed with everything we have done in the Bill except where Schedule 1 has impinged on Orkney and Shetland. It is a pity that we should have constituency interests obscuring a reasonable attempt to get a settlement. I did my best, and I deeply regret that the compromise did not come off. I worked hard to get it, as did the right hon.


Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), even though he did not like the ultimate compromise that was achieved. So did Ross and Cromarty. We all did our best, but we have been denied a chance of doing this. In these circumstances we can do nothing but return to the schedule recommended by the Scottish Water Advisory Committee.

Mr. MacArthur: May I ask the hon. Gentleman to turn his mind to a point of some importance which was raised by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) when he referred to some earlier declarations by the Minister of State? The hon. Gentleman will recall that on Second Reading he said in an intervention during the right hon. Gentleman's speech:
I think that I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that he will be very happy with what I have to say."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Grand Committee, 31st January, 1967; c. 27.]
As the Minister will appreciate, this led me to believe that two days later in his winding-up speech he would have some good news for the right hon. Gentleman. I think he misled the right hon. Gentleman in the same way. What he said that time had a very marked influence on my speech, but all he could say on the later occasion was:
I will look into … the position of Orkney and Shetland."—OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Grand Committee, 2nd February, 1967; c. 102.]
The hon. Gentleman will understand that he has Drought much of this trouble on to his own head by appearing first to give encouragement to the right hon. Gentleman and two days later changing what he said.

Dr. Mahon: The hon. Member must not misrepresent me. I worked hard on this matter. I had to contact every water authority in the area. When a Member objects and asks for consultations that does not mean that the Minister can accede right away to what may be requested even though the authority has a good case. The Minister must consult others. We got the representatives of five counties to assent, and assent from the able it burghs, at the meeting where three Members of Parliament were present It was not easy to arrange that, but,

having arranged it, I thought that we could arrive at a compromise.
That meeting did succeed, but the trouble was that the respective parties repudiated their representatives. Shetland has repudiated the idea of joining with Orkney. We must look at this problem of what would happen if there were a union of Orkney and Shetland. It would have to be with Sutherland and Caithness and Ross and Cromarty. Sutherland cannot survive on its own, but would have to accept union with Caithness and Ross and Cromarty. I worked hard to get that compromise.

Mr. Grimond: I do not want to go over the arguments again, but I must clear the record on one or two points. Let me make it quite clear that Shetland is now quite willing to have a joint authority with Orkney. That is a change, but it is because they understand that it is what the Scottish Office wants. It is not their first choice, but they are willing to accept it as second choice.
Let me also make clear that on Second Reading I put forward the proposition of a water board for Orkney and a water board for Shetland. The Minister indicated that that might be acceptable. Never since then has he said that the only thing acceptable to him was a joint water board. He appears to be saying that we ought to have agreed to a joint water board, but he did not say that earlier. He indicated to me quite clearly that if we would agree to combine the existing water authorities in Orkney in one water board and in Shetland in another subject to consultations and so on that seemed a sensible solution to him. Will he deny that? Will he make clear whether that is a true account or not?

Dr. Mabon: May I make this clear to the right hon. Gentleman. Up to the time of the meeting in Committee, when the right hon. Gentleman withdrew his Amendments to Schedule I, the understanding was that Orkney and Shetland would be reunited. On 12th April the Zetland County Council wrote to the Secretary of the Scottish Development Department thus:
I am to advise the Department that the County Council at a special meeting held last Saturday after discussion unanimously agreed to oppose the amalgamation of this County with any other County for water purposes and to fight for a Water Board for Zetland only …


Then we have this letter which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) read out, which I thought we had all seen—it was sent to me as a Member of Parliament—signed by the Vice-convener of Zetland, Mr. R. A. Johnson, and the Senior Baillie of Lerwick Town Council, Mr. Eric Gray. It says:
The Shetland Isles … lie just over 100 miles by sea from the Scottish mainland and the plan to include them with any part of Scotland …".
That was 24th April—yesterday. Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say now Shetland reverses this decision and is in favour of a union between Orkney and Shetland?

Mr. Grimond: Yes, the hon. Gentleman is to understand exactly that. They do not like it but they understand that it would be more acceptable to the Scottish Office. It is clear that its letter refers to the mainland of Scotland. Let me explain how this arose. If the Minister of State had said earlier that in his view we ought to have a joint water board, and if he had given us time for consultation about this, we might have put forward this proposal. Look at what he said in Committee. At column 490 he said:
If I am to accede to the right hon. Gentleman's request that it should be Orkney united and Shetland united, I ought to agree to it if I am so convinced at that meeting and confident that some arrangement can be made for Ross and Cromarty and for Caithness and Sutherland."—[OFFICIALREPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 16th March, 1967; c. 490.]
Right up to the end of the Committee stage he did not say to me or my local authorities that they must amalgamate among themselves. I return to the timing of this Bill. It takes a long time to discuss these things. It may be my fault, and if it is I did what I imagined was the wish of the Minister of State. I pressed my local authorities to amalgamate. This seemed to make sense I thought.

Dr. Mabon: Dr. Mabon indicated assent.

Division No. 319.]
AYES
[10.4 p.m.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Binns, John


Alldritt, Walter
Barnes, Michael
Bishop, E. S.


Allen, Scholefield
Baxter, William
Blackburn, F.


Anderson, Donald
Beaney, Alan
Booth, Albert


Armstrong, Ernest
Bence, Cyril
Boston, Terence


Ashley, Jack
Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Braddock, Mrs. E. M.


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Bidwell, Sydney
Bray, Dr. Jeremy

Mr. Grimond: I am glad to see that the hon. Gentleman nods his head. That is what he wanted. I thought that it made sense and it did make sense. Suddenly at the meeting in Edinburgh he produces this alternative scheme for a joint authority. The authorities were somewhat puzzled. There are strong arguments against amalgamation of Orkney and Shetland. If he had said earlier on that this was what the Scottish Office wanted, and had produced good arguments for it, the authorities might have come round to it earlier, as they have now.
I come back to the way in which this Bill has been handled. Throughout the negotiations that I have had, and the hon. Gentleman cannot deny this, we were working in the assumption of a separate board for Orkney and a separate board for Shetland. It is quite apparent that had Ross and Cromarty agreed to go in with Caithness and Sutherland, everything would have been fixed. What sort of argument is this, that a bad scheme would be forced on Orkney and Shetland through no fault of their own but because Ross and Cromarty will not go in with Caithness and Sutherland?
I cannot do otherwise than to ask the House to divide on this Amendment, since I have had no indication from the Government that they are either aware of the difficulties of the local authorities or that they intend to stand by what were the clear implications, the clearest implications that I have ever had from any Minister of the Government, and introduce Amendments on the points referred to.

Question put, That the words "Kirkwall Town Council" stand part of the Bill.

The House proceeded to a Division—

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not in order for hon. Members to read newspapers in the Chamber, unless it is for the purpose of making a speech in a debate.

Brooks, Edwin
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Park, Trevor


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Pavitt, Laurence


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Hoy, James
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Cant, R. B.
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Peart, Rt. Hn, Fred


Carmichael, Neil
Hynd, John
Pentland, Norman


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Coe, Denis
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Coleman, Donald
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n &amp; St. P'cras, S.)
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Concannon, J. D.
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Rankin, John


Conlan, Bernard
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Reynolds, G. W.


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Craddock, George(Bradford, S.)
Kenyon, Clifford
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Lawson, George
Rose, Paul


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Lestor, Miss Joan
Rowland, Christopher (Meriden)


Davies, Ifor (Cower)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)


Davies, Robert (Cambridge)
Lomas, Kenneth
Ryan, John


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Loughlin, Charles
Sheldon, Robert


Dewar, Donald
Luard, Evan
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Dickens, James
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Doig, Peter
McBride, Neil
Slater, Joseph


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
MacColl, James
Spriggs, Leslie


Eadie, Alex
MacDermot, Niall
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.J


Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly)
McGuire, Michael
Symonds, J. B.


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
McKay, Mrs, Margaret
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Ensor, David
Mackintosh, John P.
Thornton, Ernest


Faulds, Andrew
Maclennan, Robert
Tinn, James


Fernyhough, E.
MacPherson, Malcolm
Urwin, T. W.


Finch, Harold
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Varley, Eric C.


Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Manuel, Archie
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Ford, Ben
Mapp, Charles
Wallace, George


Forrester, John
Marquand, David
Watkins, David (Consett)


Fowler, Gerry
Mason, Roy
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Freeson, Reginald
Millan, Bruce
Wellbeloved, James


Galpern, Sir Myer
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Whitaker, Ben


Garrett, W. E.
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Whitlock, William


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Molloy, William
Wilkins, W. A.


Cray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Gregory, Arnold
Moyle, Roland
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Grey, Charles (Durham)
Murray, Albert
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Neil, Harold
Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)


Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)
Wilson, William (Coventry. S.)


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Norwood, Christopher
Winnick, David


Hannan, William
Oakes, Gordon
Winterbottom, R. E.


Harper, Joseph
O'Malley, Brian
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Orme, Stanley



Haseldine, Norman
Oswald, Thomas
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hilton, W. S.
Owen, Will (Morpeth)
Mr. Armstrong and


Hooley, Frank
Palmer, Arthur
Mr. Charles R. Morris.


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles





NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Elliott, R.W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Jopling, Michael


Astor, John
Errington, Sir Eric
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith


Baker, W. H. K.
Eyre, Reginald
Kimball, Marcus


Balniel, Lord
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Kitson, Timothy


Black, Sir Cyril
Glover, Sir Douglas
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Blaker, Peter
Goodhart, Philip
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Bossom, Sir Clive
Goodhew, Victor
Loveys, W. H.


Braine, Bernard
Gower, Raymond
MacArthur, Ian


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Grant, Anthony
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross &amp; Crom'ty)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Grant-Ferris, R.
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Gresham Cooke, R.
Maginnis, John E.


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N &amp; M)
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Maude, Angus


Bullus, Sir Eric
Gurden, Harold
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Burden, F. A.
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.


Campbell, Gordon
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Carlisle, Mark
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Miscampbell, Norman


Clegg, Walter
Hawkins. Paul
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Heseltine, Michael
Monro, Hector


Corfield, F, V.
Higgins, Terence L.
More, Jasper


Costain, A. P.
Hiley, Joseph
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Hill, J. E. B.
Murton, Oscar


Dance, James
Holland, Philip
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Hordern, Peter
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Hunt, John
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Iremonger, T. L.
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Drayson, G. B.
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)







Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Stodart, Anthony
Walters, Dennis


percival, Ian
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)
Whitdaw, Rt. Hn. WMttam


Prior, J. M. L.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Pym, Francis
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Worsley, Marcus


Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Temple, John M.
Wright, Esmond


Russell, Sir Ronald
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Younger, Hn. George


Scott, Nicholas
van Straubenzee, W. R.



Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Smith, John
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)
Mr. Lubbock and Mr. David Steel.

It being after Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill, as amended, stood adjourned.

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,


That the Proceedings on Government Business may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. McBride.]

Orders of the Day — WATER (SCOTLAND) BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.

Mr. W. H. K. Baker: I beg to move Amendment No. 41, in page 21, line 29, to leave out 'Aberchirder Town Council'.

Mr. Speaker: I suggest to the House that, with Amendment No. 41, we take Amendments No. 42, in line 32, leave out 'Abelour Town Council'; No. 43, leave out lines 35 to 41; No. 44, leave out lines 43 and 44; No. 45, in line 46, leave out 'Grantown-on-Spey Town Council'; No. 47, in line 49, leave out 'Keith Town Council'; No. 49, in page 22, leave out lines 11 to 17; No. 51, leave out lines 20 and 21; No. 52, in line 23, leave out 'Rothes Town Council'; and No. 55, in page 23, line 33, at end insert:

14. The Banff, Moray and Nairn Water Board limits of supply of:

Aberchirder Town Council
Aberlour Town Council
Banff County Council
Banff Town Council
Buckie Town Council
Buckie and Portknockie Joint Water Committee
Cullen Town Council
Dufftown Town Council
Findochty Town Council
Forres Town Council
Grantown-on-Spey Town Council
Keith Town Council
Laich of Moray Water Board
Lower Deveron Water Board
Macduff Town Council
Moray County Council
Nairn County Council
Nairn Joint Water Board
Nairn Town Council
Portknockie Town Council
Portsoy Town Council
Rothes Town Council.

Mr. Baker: May I say, at the outset, how grateful my hon. Friends and I are to you, Mr. Speaker, for calling these Amendments, in view of the fact that they are the same as those tabled during the Committee stage.
It is a significant fact that this is the third of a series of Amendments, all of which are tabled by hon. Members representing constituencies in the North and North-East of Scotland. The Minister of State said frequently during the Committee stage. and indeed at other meetings, that he envisaged 13 regional water boards for Scotland. I think it only fair to say that over the months of long discussion, correspondence, and several meetings, there was a good deal of amity expressed, not only by the Minister of State, but by officials of the Scottish

Office. It seems to me that at this stage the Government have finally closed their minds to any Amendment to Schedule 1. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) said, this is almost the end of the road, and unless the Government are prepared to think again at this stage there is very little hope for the Amendment.
I would like to refer to what has gone before. First, we had the moves by the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, to get joint consultations and voluntary amalgamations. These, admittedly, failed. Next, we had the Report of the Scottish Water Advisory Committee, and as a result of that and the consultations which took place there was a voluntary coming together of the local water authorities in the three counties of Banff, Moray and Nairn.
The Committee stage of the Bill was interspersed with various meetings between Members of Parliament, the hon. Gentleman, and officials, and these culminated in a meeting on 24th February in Edinburgh when the Minister of State met representatives from Banff, Moray and Nairn, Aberdeenshire and North Angus. At that meeting, and at subsequent meetings, and indeed throughout the Committee stage, I gained the impression that the Government's mind was not closed to amalgamation. As a result of all these consultations, the 17 local water authorities in Banff, Moray and Nairn came together and voluntarily agreed to amalgamate among themselves. This in itself was a complete change of mind, and the hon. Gentleman, to give him his due, acknowledged this, and even after the meeting on 24th February said that he was willing to listen.
The final stage, other than this Report stage, was a meeting held in Aberdeen on 29th March and presided over by one of the officials of the Scottish Development Department. Before that meeting I made the suggestion that two working parties should be set up, one to look after the interests of Aberdeen and North Kincardine, and the other to look after the interests of Banff, Moray and Nairn, and I thought that that point had been taken, but when it came to discussions during the meeting, and indeed in the findings of the meeting, we found that one working party was to be set up. To my mind,


this meant that the advice given by the Scottish Development Department and the Minister of State was that there could be no going back on Schedule 1.
After saying that the choice for the North-East of Scotland lay between two regions, Banff, Moray and Nairn, and Aberdeen and part of North Kincardine, or integration of the whole area into one board, the Scottish Water Advisory Committee, in its final Report, went on to say, in paragraph 93, that
these three Counties"—
that is, Banff, Moray and Nairn—
with a population of about 105,000, compact in configuration, and independent of outside sources for their supplies, would constitute a suitable regional water area.
It rejects this and says that Aberdeenshire could contribute supplies to this area—that is, Moray and Nairn—if the need arose. It goes on to say:
We gather from the evidence that this view is based on the proposals of the County Council of Aberdeen for the use of the supplies proposed to be drawn from the Cabrach scheme.
The hon. Member knows that the Cabrach scheme has dropped out. Therefore, the main reason for this larger area, as advanced by the Advisory Committee, has also fallen.
Time and time again the Minister of State has said that Aberdeenshire is short of water. Nobody quarrels with that—least of all Banffshire and Moray and Nairn. The Minister knows as well as I do that the problem of the supply of extra water needed for Aberdeenshire has been virtually solved by amicable agreement between the Banff County Council and the River Deveron Fishery Board. The result is that Aberdeenshire is now to get 5 million gallons of water a day from the River Deveron at Turriff. Although part of the case for retaining Schedule 1 and the case based on the Cabrach scheme have fallen, the Government remain obdurate.
The underlying fact is that all 17 local water authorities in Banff, Moray and Nairn are agreed on amalgamation and, as the Minister of State knows, a draft water order is in preparation and already exists in skeleton form. Surely this shows the earnest of the intent of these 17 local water authorities. It is far better to take

a willing bride to the altar than to perpetrate a shot-gun marriage—which is what the Government will do if they stick to Schedule 1 in its present form.
I remind the House and the Minister that the decision to amalgamate was taken by freely-elected representatives of the people in the area. If the Government insist on retaining Schedule 1 in its present form they will be going against local opinion and, to use an angling simile, they will be swallowing the bait, hook, line and sinker. The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel), who is not here at the moment, will agree that the sinker part of the simile could well be left out in the case of Scotland. The Government have made up their minds and they will not budge.
I do not wish to rehearse the arguments we had in Committee and at the various meetings to which I have referred, but the Minister will remember that in Committee the Opposition moved Amendments which would have made it possible for public inquiries to be held where amalgamations were opposed. The Government misguidedly rejected those Amendments, and are now forcing their view on North-East Scotland in the teeth of local public opposition and against all the best advice that my hon. Friends and I have given them.
This amounts to bull-dozing legislation through the House, and is not in the best interests of the people concerned. Is it any wonder that the Government are faced with a revulsion of feeling throughout the country when they insist on this kind of legislative procedure?

Mr. Dewar: I listened with sympathy to the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Baker), although his arguments were familiar, which is not surprising as we have been subjected to an enthusiastic course of propaganda enthusiastically sustained throughout the debate on principle and at the meeting on 29th March in Aberdeen. I know the sincerity with which he and his local authority maintain their point of view, but I am left with the impression that it is mistaken, for all that.
Some arguments have been used in this and in past debates many times. First, it has been suggested with heat that there is a special natural boundary running throughout the proposed North-East Region which would take Banff, Moray


and Nairn out of the region. The hon. Member said that although it was difficult to see it on the map, it could be seen on the ground, running from Tomintoul down through Cabrach to the coast. He likened it to the spur of the Grampians which was the excuse for halving Kincardine, but, unfortunately, his colleagues have been arguing that this similar spur was no barrier at all in Kincardine and ought to be ignored. The same argument could have been applied to this situation.
I think that the hon. Member would agree that, if this is to be the boundary of the new region, its only effect will be to half Banff County. This would not be popular or Acceptable to his local authority—

Mr. Baker: The hon. Member is talking absolute rubbish. If he would refer to my speech in Standing Committee, he would see that the line I drew did not divide the County of Banff in two, but ran almost the entire length of the county boundary.

Mr. Dewar: I cannot accept that. We should have to have a map to prove it, as I do not suppose that many hon. Members know the minutae of the geography of Banff. I have checked this in the OFFICIAL REPORT, and my impression is that the hon. Member's proposal would divide the county as I have described, although perhaps not down the middle—

Mr. Speaker: Order. With respect, I think that the present proposal is to include or to cut out Banff entirely. We cannot talk about dividing it on this Amendment.

Mr. Dewar: I am delighted to forgo the pleasure, Mr. Speaker, but what you say underlines the irrelevancy of one of the main arguments for this proposition, one on which the case was heavily based.
The proposers of the Amendment have gained a great deal of comfort from the Advisory Committee's Final Report, and indeed it says that for the 105,000 people in the proposed new region who would be excluded from the present Schedule 1 arrangement would make this an unworkable unit. I would accept it as a possible and reasonable unit.
The Report went on to put tremendous emphasis—unfortunately, in view of

recent events—on the Cabrach scheme. This was to be the example of the possible interdependence between Banff and Moray and Nairn and the rest of the North East region. It is now dead, and with its demise has gone it is alleged any possible link between the two areas. But that scheme has been replaced with the scheme at Deveron taking water at Turriff and the Banff scheme, taking water from the lower reaches.
This should give some basis for common interest and provide some link, which is the justification for the total region. After all, the Deveron boundary zig-zags eratically along the county boundary between Banff and the rest of the proposed region. It would be unfortunate if, because we have amicably reached a conclusion which is satisfactory to both sides at the moment—given the present requirements and output of the schemes—there was at no time overall planning and consultation. There will have to be such processes and it would surely be better and more efficient if they took place in the framework of the proposed region.
Two arguments bulked largely at the meeting in Aberdeen and lie behind the Amendment. The first was put with brutal frankness in Committee by the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. G. Campbell), who said that there was a real danger that Banff and Moray and Nairn would be swamped by Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire. That would be a tragedy but it is an argument against any regionalisation or co-operation.
If the hon. Member believes that we cannot trust representatives from Aberdeen or the county to look dispassionately at the region's problems and to consider important arguments on behalf of Banff, Moray and Nairn, he is closing the door to any co-operation, whether in fire or police services or any other field to which the Government might turn their attention.
The second argument put energetically by the hon. Member for Banff and his local authority colleagues was that they had a lower water rate—and indeed, the lowest in his area is 1s. 8d. in 1966–67. The Aberdeenshire water rate, they said, had tended to increase and now stood at 2s. 8d., so that there would be an increase in their water rates which would


be aggravated because they would have to bear a considerable burden from possible future complicated engineering schemes in the county.
I appreciate that, but it is not an argument to which the Minister of State can afford to listen. It is a thrawn situation when local prejudice is reinforced by special financial interests and I hope that my hon. Friend will stand firm. If it is said that it will be a bad bargain for Banff and Moray and Nairn, then that argument applies to Aberdeen City, part of which I represent. When hon. Members say that 1s. 8d. is the rate in Moray and Nairn, they should not forget that the water rate in Aberdeen is down to 7d. or something in that region.
If we are asked to go in, because of advantages in regionalisation, with our low water rate and accept—as Aberdeen City would have to do—considerable financial disadvantages, it is unreasonable to expect us to be sympathetic to pleas for exemption because of added financial burden under the new arrangements. We in Aberdeen City accept that there will be very great efficiencies and big economies to be made, as well as advantages in connection with overall planning, but that, to get these advantages, we must be prepared to accept considerable burdens being placed on the city's finances. However, we also accept that others should be prepared to make similar sacrifices.
10.30 p.m.
If the Minister of State gives way tonight, and allows Moray and Nairn and Banff to leave the proposed North-East Region, I offer the warning that Aberdeen City will almost certainly reconsider its position and will almost certainly apply for permission to leave the proposed region. If that happened we would be left not with what is proposed in the Amendment, a truncated North-East Region, but no North-East Region at all. I regret to have to make this sound rather like blackmail and to put the Minister of State in an uncomfortable position, but we must be realistic about the matter.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Even by way of threat, the hon. Gentleman cannot talk about an Amendment which is not on the Notice Paper.

Mr. Dewar: I am sorry for getting out of order, Mr. Speaker, but I thought it important to draw the attention of the House to one almost certain consequence of the Government accepting the Amendment.
I listened with a great deal of sympathy to the remarks of the hon. Member for Banff. I also listened to the representations made by his local authorities. I accept implicity their sincerity and the fact that they honestly and sincerely want to be excluded and to go their own way. This must be an important fact to which the Minister of State will have to give his attention. Ultimately, however, it cannot be the only factor. It is because we have paid lip service to the principle that is involved and that, over the years, we have been making such cheeseparing progress. Now, if my hon. Friend gives way to only local interests, we will end up with no regionalisation in any part of Scotland.
It was put strongly that a St. Andrew's House point of view was being foisted on the local authorities in Moray and Nairn and Banff. I do not believe that that is true. There is another point of view, and that is represented by the concept of the North-East Region. We must have overall planning and some kind of machinery which will use the potentialities and resources of the region. I know that the North-East Consultative Group regards water as a vital raw material for industrial expansion. Indeed, the chairman of the group has on several occasions stressed the terrible mistake that would be made if Moray and Nairn and Banff were excluded from the proposed region. I sincerely hope that the Minister and the House will also take the view that such a move would indeed be a mistake.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I am very much obliged to the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Baker) for all that he has done in trying to get agreement on what I know is a difficult problem in the area of Moray and Nairn and Banff. A remarkable fact is that we had this discussion earlier and that it has resulted in a proposal which I have in a letter before me—the voluntary union of the 17 authorities in the Moray and Nairn and Banff areas. This is an example of the concentration of mind that has existed and the willingness on the part of those concerned to combine. As Mr. Armstrong,


the County Clerk of Banff said to me in a letter, "This proves their anxiety to form into one regional board".
I am indebted to those who attended the meeting at which the problems of Aberdeen County were discussed. I have in mind the immediate problems to which the hon. Member for Banff referred. I am also grateful that we were able to get agreement, at that meeting, with Banff County and that the way was made clear for Aberdeenshire to promote a new Order to substitute the Order which the County was refused by the Parliamentary Commissioners for extra water to be taken from the Deveron at Cabrach. It is now proceeding to do this at Turriff. I do not know whether the Order has been laid, but I am indebted to all concerned for making the way clear.
I expressed my view on this issue in Committee on 21st March last, when I began by saying that I was pleased that all these matters had been taken into consideration. I did not express a view about either of the regions, although I said:
I believe, irrespective of whether this becomes a full region or not, that the appropriate counties"—
that is, Moray and Nairn and Banff—
within the region would always want to have this kind of discussion from time to time. If the North-East Consultative Group is to function, it has to do so in the knowledge that the constituent local authorities will be able to take action, not only about water, but about any other matter relative to industrial expansion in that area.
We all recognise that, for example, Peterhead has to go its own way in expanding its water supplies as a result of losing Cabrach. We do not know what will happen in that North-Eastern part of the North-East, although we want to see proper water supplies being maintained. As I said in Committee:
It would seem to me that, considering the needs of the City of Aberdeen, the County of Aberdeenshire, and all the rest of the North-East, one ought to take into account the engineering strategy to be employed on the Rivers Don, Dee, Deveron, Spey, Findhorn and Ugie rather than a strategy as confined to two rivers.
I went on:
I put it to the Banff County Council deputation that if, by chance, Aberdeen did tap the Deveron, it might be that Banff would have to take water from the Spey, which would be comparatively expensive due to the distance.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 21st March, 1967: col. 501–2.]

At the meeting which, unfortunately, I could not attend—I could not attend them all—held in Aberdeen on 29th March, Colonel McKessack, who has been extremely progressive and broadminded in his approach to these matters—although he has always stuck to the idea that there should be a region of Moray and Nairn and Banff, made the point that, in his view, the fundamental approach to the problem had been wrong.
A water survey in the North-East would have saved much of the argument being used at present and it was not too late to start such a survey, with facts and figures to put before the water authority before an irrevocable decision was made.
That summarises the stage we had then reached at the meeting. There would be at least two regions. The argument whether there should be one region remained to be fought out, but we had arrived then—and a big movement was in progress—at a union of Moray, Nairn and Banff and a union of Aberdeen and Aberdeen City at least, together with an agreed strategy on the water Order governing the Deveron and an undertaking that in future this study would be proceeding.
I thought, and I hinted at it here, that the key lay with the City of Aberdeen. I did not influence the discussion at all. I was not present, but I have here the minutes of all the arguments used. Contrary to what has been said by the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Baker), I did not instruct the Scottish Development Department officer to take the line he suggested. I will read the minute in relation to this point. It states:
Thereafter, Mr. Dingwall-Smith enquired whether it was the feeling of the meeting that nothing should be done until the Government had decided on the region, sat thereafter the authorities would form a working party.
He went on to explain:
The meeting agreed to such an arrangement, and that the Department should ask the Town Clerk of Aberdeen to make arrangements for calling a meeting of the working party once the boundary question had been decided.
Let hon. Members note that—"once the boundary question had been decided."
What the meeting decided was that it would not conduct two financial exercises, one of them based on two regions and one based on one region, but only one, but would be done when the boundary


question had been agreed. That was the outcome of the meeting.
I must stress that what has been said by my hon. Friend on behalf of the City of Aberdeen is said much more cogently, with respect to him, than what is said in the minutes by the officials, but he has emphasised the big point, which is that the City of Aberdeen in the short term would gain by uniting only with the county. The City of Aberdeen in the short term would lose money if it united with the county and with the counties of Moray, Nairn and Banff.
The City of Aberdeen chose—and not only chose, but asked—to work with the region and, therefore, at short-term higher cost. It is not an ideal gesture by my hon. Friend to say that the city will not go into a region so truncated, because we then come back to the argument that the rivers of the North-East have to be taken into account in the expansion that should take place there, not only for housing, which is urgent, but for industry, which is equally urgent.
I did not intervene in this argument at all. The Secretary of State did not intervene at all. We waited to see the outcome of the discussions, because when authorities make a case and their case involves decisions which impinge on other authorities, it is wrong for the Secretary of State not to take account of the authorities which are affected by that decision. The one authority we had not consulted was the City of Aberdeen, the one authority that had made it clear that it wanted to unite with the County of Aberdeen.
The Secretary of State and I kept completely open minds. The deputation that came to see us would agree that we did not turn down flat any question of a union of Moray, Nairn and Banff. Mr. Armstrong, in his letter to me, said that they went forward to do this on my advice as a consequence of the meeting in St. Andrew's House. In other words, I did not close the gate at all but left it open for the discussions with the authorities.
What has become very clear is the position of the City of Aberdeen. I talked to one or two of my hon. Friend's constituents, and to one or two constituents of the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. G. Campbell) on Friday, and there

is not the same ill-feeling or the same intensity of feeling about this matter that there was at the earlier discussions. Having listened to the representations from Banff, Moray and Nairn, I am confident that if we proceed with the Schedule as it is, with great reluctance, but nevertheless with an anxiety to cooperate, we shall see the North-East Region getting on very well in the considerable work which it has to do. I am sorry that the meeting on 29th March came down so emphatically against two regions, but it gave the Government no option.
My own view, which I have often stated, is that we should have not 13 regions but fewer than that and in time we may see a fusion of some of these regions, which may make the situation a little easier for Moray. Nairn and Banff to accept. If Moray and Nairn and Banff are having to make a sacrifice in combining with Aberdeen, the City of Aberdeen is making a greater sacrifice. But all these are matters for the short term and in the long term it is right for all the areas to stick to what the Schedule proposes.

Mr. G. Campbell: I am extremely sorry that after all this consideration and meetings the Government are still not prepared to change the Schedule for the North-East, because this is the largest of the amalgamations which is being proposed, no fewer than 36 water authorities and covering a very large area geographically.
From the moment that this proposal was first put forward, my hon. Friend the Member for Banff (Mr. Baker) and I have represented the views of our local water authorities, which are that there should be two amalgamations, Banff, Moray and Nairn being one and the City and County of Aberdeen being another, including, if the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) had been accepted, the whole of Kincardine, making another large amalgamation.
The Minister has said that if Aberdeen City were to be in an amalgamation of the kind which I propose, it would be less expensive for it. I am not sure that the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Dewar) agrees with that. The City of Aberdeen is now the only dissentient from the proposal which I am putting


forward and that is on financial grounds which, according to the Minister, are mistaken financial grounds. None of the other authorities has any objection to the proposals which we are making and, as has been said, the three counties are all agreed on this amalgamation. There are 1'7 authorities which are willing amalgamators and the Government are simply rejecting this situation. The consultations and meetings have come to nothing. It seems to have been only token consultation.
The worst aspect of this is that the Government are not now prepared to make a single change in the Schedule. Not a comma or a word of the original Schedule put forward by the Water Advisory Committee have the Government changed. On Second Reading I asked for an assurance that the Government would be prepared to allow changes, but the steamroller has been in action.
My hon. Friend pointed out that since the Water Advisory Committee reported there have been changes in the situation. That Committee certainly was not expected to say the last word on the subject. The major scheme of the Cabrach has disappeared and another scheme has been agreed for the maximum amount of water which can be abstracted from the river Deveron. The Government are rejecting a willing amalgamation in which there would have been a spirit of co-operation and good will.
What is disconcerting is that the Minister of State personally gives the impression of being reasonable—he has all the way through—and of being ready to consider some of these proposals, but in he event no change has been allowed.

The steamroller has been there from the beginning. This precise pattern of Schedule 1 is to be forced on local authorities against their good advice and against their will.

What is dismaying about this is that it is being done by Scottish Ministers within Scotland on a subject entirely involving organisation within their own Scottish jurisdiction. It is not a Whitehall decision. It is not a matter in which the Treasury is bringing pressure to bear—there is no reason why it should. This is an example of the over-centralisation of decisions in St. Andrew's House, in Edinburgh. Let those who advocate some form of self-government for Scotland ponder on this. If the same lot of Ministers were in office in a self-governing Scotland, presumably they would be behaving in exactly the same way to regions distant from Edinburgh. There is no protection for the regions in that proposal.

10.45 p.m.

This is a matter which is entirely within the power of consultation of the Secretary of State and within his decision in Scotland. The attitude being displayed by the Secretary of State shows that the Government are not concerned about the special problems of the regions distant from Edinburgh, that they are not concerned with the views of the local authorities in those regions, and that they are not prepared to modify proposals drawn up by the central Government. I hope that my hon. Friends will divide on this issue.

Question put, That the words "Aberchirder Town Council" stand part of the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 166. Noes 101.

Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
MacPherson, Malcolm
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Gregory) Arnold
Mahon, Peter (Preston, s.)
Rose, Paul


Crey, Charles (Durham)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Manuel, Archie
Rowland, Christopher (Meriden)


Hannan, William
Mapp, Charies
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)


Haseldine, Norman
Marquand, David
Ryan, John


Hilton, W. S.
Mason, Roy
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Hooley, Frank
Millan, Bruce
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Spriggs, Leslie


Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Molloy, William
Stonehouse, John


Hoy, James
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Tinn, James


Hynd, John
Moyle, Roland
Urwin, T. W.


Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Murray, Albert
Varley, Eric G.


Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Neal, Harold
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Norwood, Christopher
Wallace, George


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Oakes, Gordon
Watkins, David (Consett)


Kenyon, Clifford
O'Malley, Brian
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Orme, Stanley
Wellbeloved, James


Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Oswald, Thomas
Whitaker, Ben


Lawson, George
Owen, Will (Morpeth)
Whitlock, William


Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Palmer, Arthur
Wilkins, W. A.


Lestor, Miss Joan
Park, Trevor
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Lomas, Kenneth
Pavitt, Laurence
Wlliams, W. T. (Warrington)


Loughlin, Charles
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)


Luard, Evan
Pentland, Norman
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Winnick, David


McBride, Neil
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)
Winterbottom, R. E.


MacColl, James
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


MacDermot, Niall
Rankin, John



McGuire, Michael
Reynolds, G. W.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Rhodes, Geoffrey
Mr Walter Harrison and


Mackintosh, John P.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Mr Joseph Harper. 


MacMillan, Maicolm (Western Isles)
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.) NOES





NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Murton, Oscar


Allaaon, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Astor, John
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Baker, W. H. K.
Hawkins, Paul
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Black, Sir Cyril
Heseltine, Michael
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Blaker, Peter
Higgins, Terence L.
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Bossom, Sir Clive
Hiley, Joseph
Percival, Ian


Braine, Bernard
Hill, J. E. B.
Prior, J. M. L.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Holland, Philip
Pym, Francis


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hordern, Peter
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Hunt, John
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus,N&amp;M)
Iremonger, T. L.
Russell, Sir Ronald


Burden, F. A.
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Scott, Nicholas


Campbell, Gordon
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Carlisle, Mark
Jopling, Michael
Smith, John


Clegg, Walter
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Kimball, Marcus
Stodart, Anthony


Corfield, F. V.
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)


Costain, A. P.
Kitson, Timothy
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Dance, James
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)


Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Loveys, W. H.
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Lubbock, Eric
Temple, John M.


Drayson, G. B.
MacArthur, Ian
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross&amp;Crom'ty)
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Errington, Sir Eric
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Walters, Dennis


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Maginnls, John E.
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Glover, Sir Douglas
Maude, Angus
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Goodhart, Philip
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Goodhew, Victor
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Worsley, Marcus


Gower, Raymond
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Wright, Esmond


Grant, Anthony
Miscampbell, Norman
Younger, Hn. George


Grant-Ferris, R.
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)



Gresham Cooke, R.
Monro, Hector
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Crimond, Rt. Hn. J.
More, Jasper
Mr R. W. Elliott and


Gurden. Harold
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Mr Reginald Eyre.

Orders of the Day — Schedule 2.—(ADAPTATION OF STATUTORY PROVISIONS AND ENACTMENTS IN CONSEQUENCE OF TRANSFER OF FUNCTIONS.)

Amendments made: No. 57, in page 24, line 25, leave out 'its' and insert 'their'.

No. 58, in page 24, line 27, leave out 'its' and insert their'.—[Dr. Dickson Mahon.]

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I beg to move Amendment No. 59, in page 26, line 28, at the end to insert:
16. For the purposes of Part II of Schedule 2 to the said Act of 1966, any transfer, in whole or in part, under the Water (Scotland) Acts 1946 to 1967, of the undertaking of a local water authority, or of a regional water board or of a water development board to such a board shall be deemed to be an amalgamation of water undertakings.
The Amendment is required solely for purposes of Part II of Schedule 2 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1966. I hinted in Committee that we would have to make the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Schedule 4.—(PROVISIONS AS TO RF GIONAL WATER BOARDS AND WATER DEVELOPMENT BOARDS.)

Amendments made: No. 61, in page 27. line 26, leave out 'comes' and insert 'come'

No. 62, in page 28, line 18, to leave out 'Appointment' and to insert 'Appointments'.

No. 63 in page 28, line 43, leave out 'schedule' and insert 'Act'.—[Dr. Dickson Mabon.]

Dr. Dickson Mahon: I beg to move Amendment No. 64, in page 29, to leave out line 3 and insert 'the members of the board'.
This is a drafting Amendment, making clear the position about the election of the chairman.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: No. 65, in page 30, line 39, leave out 'comes' and insert 'come'.—[Dr. Dickson Mahon.]

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I beg to move Amendment No. 66, in page 30, line 44, after or', to insert:
'except with the approval of the Secretary of State'.

The Amendment implements an undertaking I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Bothwell (Mr. James Hamilton), and I am happy to be able to move it.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Schedule 5.—(AMENDMENT OF THE WATER (SCOTLAND) ACTS 1946 AND 1949.)

Mr. MacArthur: I beg to move Amendment No. 67, in page 32, line 34, at the end to insert:
4. In section 26(2), after the words 'any such land' there shall be inserted the words or a notice relating thereto'.
5. In section 26(3), after the word 'street', there shall be inserted the words 'and on any land'.
In Section 26 of the Water (Scotland) Act, 1946, there is provision for the erection and maintenance of notices and markers on water mains in streets and on buildings. In saying that, I am simplifying the section, but the Minister will appreciate the point I have in mind. There is no power in that section for the fixing of markers or notices on water mains running across open land, and I understand that that has led to some difficulty in rural areas where there are long lengths of water main between streets on which markers can be made under the terms of the 1946 Act.
The difficulty has become slightly greater recently because of the natural tendency for the scope of farming to increase and for fields to be run together. In some cases the position of an air valve, for example, is substantially removed from the place at which a notice can be erected. In Perthshire, for instance, there is one place where the notice is removed no less than 410 yards from the air valve to which it refers.
The Amendment's purpose, therefore, is to extend the terms of Section 26 of the 1946 Act to embrace the possibility of placing notices and markers on open land as well as in streets and on buildings. One part of the Amendment relates to the protection of the farmer or land owner concerned, in that the existing powers of compensation for notices on houses or in streets would be extended also to the placing of notices on land.

11.0 p.m.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I should dearly like to accept the Amendment, coming, as we are, near to the end of these proceedings, but, unfortunately, I cannot.


The difficulty is that the Amendment would give an absolute right. We have consulted the various interests concerned. I realise that some county councils would like this provision, but others would not.
I am told on engineering advice that a board would have maps of the line of its mains. As a notice could be affixed to a fence or building at the point at which a main entered private land, there should not be difficulty in following the line by measurement. Farmers tell us that many markers are often lost or destroyed by farming activities, including cattle consuming them in some way or other, and I am advised that the proposal contained in the Amendment is not the best way of proceeding.
I take the point that in certain circumstances the proposal might be a good one and that we should achieve the purpose by agreement with owners of land. We would certainly try to do this. In other words, I accept the purpose which the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) has in mind, but I cannot agree that we should give an absolute right.
I hope that the hon. Member will accept that we should not write this absolute right into the Bill and that he will accept our assurance that, where practicable, we will do what he has in mind but that we must take into account the views of farmers and others concerning private grounds.

Mr. MacArthur: I am obliged to the Minister of State for recognising the point of difficulty underlying the Amendment. Equally, I realise that other difficulties might arise by introducing an absolute power of this kind. In view of what the hon. Gentleman has said and the understanding way in which he has treated our proposal, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I beg to move Amendment No. 68, in page 34, line 47, at the end to insert:
';and for the words from "not exceeding" to "determine," there shall be substituted the words "as may be determined under section 8(1) of this Act."'.

I suggest, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that we can conveniently take at the same time Amendment 69.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Yes, if the House agrees.

Dr. Mabon: The purpose of the two Amendments is to adjust the arrangements under the Water (Scotland) Act, 1949, governing the power of local authorities concerning water expenditure which they can charge to their general rate. I will not go into all the possibilities that were discussed in Committee.
The Amendments explain our intentions. I gave an indication in Committee that we would try to make Amendments of this nature. The Amendments to paragraphs 19 and 23 of the Schedule provide for the later consequential changes if the House agrees to these two Amendments. I commend them to the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: Amendment No. 69, in page 35, to leave out lines 18 to 28 and to insert:
(1) In any year a local authority may defray, out of the county or, as the case may be, the burgh rate, such part, as they think fit, of the expenditure incurred by them in meeting any requisition under Part II of the Water (Scotland) Act 1967 or in performing any of their functions under any enactment in relation to water supply in their district, to an amount which, unless the Secretary of State otherwise approves, shall not exceed the amount requisitioned from them in respect of that year under subsection (2) of section 11 of that Act, or under that subsection as modified by virtue of subsection (4) of that section.

No 70, in line 44, leave out 'its' and insert 'their'

No. 71, in line 46, leave out 'its' and insert 'their'.

No. 72, in line 48, leave out 'is' and insert 'are'.—[Dr. Dickson Mabon.]

Orders of the Day — Title

Amendment made: No. 73, in line 7, leave out 'its' and insert 'their'.—[Dr. Dickson Mabon.]

Bill read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — REMUNERATION OF TEACHERS (SCOTLAND) BILL

Not emended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Orders of the Day — Clause 3.—(PROVISION FOR ARBITRATION.)

11.4 p.m.

Mr. Ian MacArthur: I beg to move, in page 3, line 38. after 'Labour', to insert:
'or the Lord President of the Court of Session, as may be determined by the committee,'.
The Amendment raises a matter of major principle. The Minister will remember that we moved a similar Amendment in Committee and that on Second Reading we gave notice of our intention to move an Amendment on these lines and explained why we felt that the Government's proposal regarding the arbitration machinery to be introduced in Clause 3 was completely unacceptable to us.
It may be helpful to remind the House of the purpose of the Bill. It is, broadly, to bring up to date and to improve the machinery for discussing and recommending the scale of teachers' salaries in Scotland. The Bill naturally provides a form of machinery to be observed in the event of any dispute and the proposal which the Government make in Clause 3 is that in the event of any dispute the Minister of Labour would be required to appoint arbiters to determine it. If there were no existing machinery of arbitration in Scotland it would be reasonable for the Government to propose that the Minister of Labour should be responsible for the appointment of arbiters. As the Secretary of State reminded us, the Minister of Labour is responsible for the appointment of arbiters in many other circumstances in which disputes might arise.
The fact, however, is that there is already machinery for arbitration in Scotland, a system which is purely Scottish in character and which has the complete confidence of employers and teachers who in the past have been involved in arbitration matters. There is complete confidence in the present system by which the Lord President of the Court of Session, in the event of a dispute appoints arbiters. The Lord President of the Court of Session is the

head of the Scottish judiciary. He may be compared with the Lord Chief Justice in England and has some of the functions of the Master of the Rolls. He is always a man of the utmost eminence in law and public life in Scotland.
For many years when a dispute has arisen the Lord President of the Court of Session has appointed arbiters. Invariably the findings of those arbiters, which have varied in their nature, have been accepted by the negotiating committee and invariably the teachers have had complete confidence in the arbiters appointed by the Lord President of the Court of Session. If there were no existing system of arbitration it would be reasonable for the Government to make the proposal in the Bill, but an excellent system already exists and has the complete confidence of all concerned in arbitration. I stress the word "confidence", because our whole argument rests upon it. If arbitration is to work the system must have the confidence of those for whom the arbitration is set in motion.
There is no doubt at all that teachers in Scotland have the utmost confidence in the present system. Why in those circumstances do the Government propose to change it? I have asked this question before and ask it tonight because we have not yet had a reply, or at least not one which makes sense. Why scrap a system which has the confidence of the teachers, a system which is peculiarly Scottish and which is liked and respected by the Scottish people for whom the system of arbitration works?
I must warn the Under-Secretary that if he does not give a satisfactory reply to this matter tonight, teachers in Scotland will suspect the motives of the Government. I have gone over this argument before and I do not want to go over the details again.
The teachers in Scotland are asking why it is that the Secretary of State wishes to get rid of a system in which they have such complete confidence. They are particularly asking why it is that the Secretary of State, in the event of a dispute, would call in his Ministerial colleague, the Minister of Labour, to appoint arbiters to determine a dispute in which the Secretary of State would be involved. I urge the Minister to give thought to


this and to recognise that the only way in which he can keep the confidence of the teaching profession is by changing the proposal in Clause 3.
Originally in Committee we proposed simply that the Minister of Labour should be removed from Clause 3 and the Lord President of the Court of Session should be introduced, in order to maintain the status quo. For procedural reasons which the Minister will understand we have amended this proposal somewhat, and in the Amendment before us we propose that there should be an element of choice in the matter, and that the arbiters should be appointed either by the Minister of Labour or by the Lord President of the Court of Session, and that the negotiating committee should decide which of these authorities should be appointed arbiters.
Equally, the Minister will understand that our preference is for the Lord President of the Court of Session. The Minister has already told us why he believes that the Minister of Labour would be a fair and impartial person to appoint fair and impartial arbiters. On this side of the House we do not quarrel with that at all. What he says would make a great deal of sense if there were no existing arbitration system. If he were stepping in to fill a void this would be a good way of doing it.
But the void does not exist, because a system of arbitration is in existence. If the Minister is to try to force this Clause through he must persuade the House that the change in the system is desirable. Why does the Minister propose to dispose of the services of the Lord President of the Court of Session? Does he suggest that the Lord President is unable to appoint arbiters fairly? Does he say that the head of the Scottish judiciary does not have the capacity to choose impartially? Is he maintaining that the Lord President is partial in these matters? What is wrong with the present system? He has not told us. Why should the Lord President be removed completely from the process in which he has played such a dignified and impartial part in the past?
I have come to the conclusion that in drafting this Bill, which in other respects is so excellent, the Minister overlooked, or forgot, or ignored the fact that a system

of arbitration already existed. I say that because I notice that the terms of Clause 3 are almost precisely the same as the terms of the equivalent clause in the English Bill of 1965. I have already pointed out to the Minister, and I point out to the House, that subsection 1 is, word for word, the same as in the English Bill. Subsections 2 and 3 are virtually the same as in the English Bill.
The only change is the introduction of the Scots word "arbiters" in place of the English word "arbitrators". Why is this so? I believe that this lends support to the suspicion that we have on this side of the House that the Minister ignored an excellent system already existing, and lifted from the English Act the arbitration provision, which may make sense in England, but makes no sense at all in Scotland. Now he is obstinately sticking to the drafting which, over and over again, we have shown to be completely wrong and unacceptable in Scotland.
11.15 p.m.
I said earlier that, in other respects, the Bill is an excellent one. I urge the hon. Gentleman to review his position again, even at this late stage. If he insists on steamrollering the very proper objection of teachers in Scotland and right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House, not forgetting the views of many of his right hon. and hon. Friends on his own side, he is likely to lose the confidence on which the very success of this Bill depends.
I cannot emphasise enough that, in Scotland, we are approaching with frightening speed a crisis in education. The year 1970–1, when the school leaving age is to be raised, approaches us very quickly. If we are to meet the enormous challenge of that year, it is critical that the confidence of the teaching profession should be held. If the Minister clings to his obstinate view, that confidence may be weakened, and I put it no higher than that. If confidence is weakened, the whole panoply of the educational scene will be endangered.
I ask the hon. Gentleman, even now, to tell the House not how good the Minister of Labour is, because that is not the argument, but why it is that the Lord President of the Court of Session is not capable or equipped, in the view of the Government, to appoint arbiters, as he


has done for years past. What is wrong with the present system, and why does the hon. Gentleman wish to change it? Why is it that this Whitehall-dominated Government again propose to scrap a purely Scottish system, working in a purely Scottish context for Scottish education?
The Under-Secretary has given us no answer yet. I fear that he will not give us an answer tonight. If he does not, I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will press this important matter of principle to a Division.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I wish to support the very forceful case made by my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur). Time and again in Committee, the Under-Secretary tried to explain how good the Ministry of Labour system was. That was something we never questioned; yet his winding-up speech was devoted to that subject. Therefore, I ask him tonight to devote himself to the questions which have been posed, and not to go back over questions which we on this side of the House have ourselves already answered.
We want to know what is wrong with the present system. Only if he can answer that will he go any way to convince us. If he had, for example, used the Report of the National Board for Prices and Incomes on Scottish Teachers' Salaries, which was published last May and which talked of a uniform system, we might have thought that there was a logical reason. But he was frightened to quote that Government paper, and we all know why.
The hon. Gentleman has called nothing in aid to support his case for altering the present system. There seems to be no logical reason for it, except the desire to be uniform and take his orders from Whitehall.

Sir Myer Galpern: I intervene briefly to renew the request which I and some of my hon. Friends made to the Under-Secretary during the discussion on the principle of the Bill.
The hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) has challenged my hon. Friend the Under-Secre-

tary to say whether or not he has fears that the Lord President of the Court of Session is somehow incompetent to appoint arbiters. However, I think that my hon. Friend has already given his answer. In the course of our proceedings in Committee, he said:
The fact still remains that this is a field in which he has no experience and in which, in the strict sense of the term, he has no particular competence."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. Scottish Grand Committee, 11th April, 1967, c. 37.]
I think that that criticism is wholly unjustified, but that was my hon. Friend's answer. I have many years' experience in dealing with teachers, and I find that this has aroused more anger and resentment among them than one would reasonably expect. They have read my hon. Friend's statement, and it has been thrown at me because, unfortunately, I was not selected to be a member of the Committee even though I put forward this criticism when we discussed the principle of the Bill. They resent this slander on the competence of the Lord President of the Court of Session. They fear, and I think with every reason, that there is something sinister behind the change. I do not agree with them, but this is the impression they get from my hon. Friend's remarks about the competence of the Lord President of the Court of Session.
The system which we are asking the Government to retain has been in operation since 1945. Since then there have been four arbitrations, and they have not all gone in favour of the teachers. It is therefore not the case that if we retain the existing machinery the teachers will necessarily benefit from it. They have not always done so, but they are nevertheless rightly dubious about, and critical of, my hon. Friend's failure to give a cogent and relevant reason for effecting this change.
I have never before come across such stubbornness on the part of a Minister in the face of the almost unanimous criticism voiced when the principle of the Bill was discussed. Despite the sincerely held views expressed by Members on both sides of the House that there should be no alteration in the machinery for arbitrations, my hon. Friend seems determined to go ahead with his proposal. I appeal to him, even at this late hour, to give some consideration to the


teachers who are doing their best under the most difficult circumstances. Their confidence has been severely shaken, and I ask him not to give it another jolt so that they feel that the teaching profession is going to be shot at by the Scottish Office on every possible occasion. Unless the Minister accedes to our request this evening, the feeling will be created in the minds of teachers that the teaching profession is not worth the candle.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Bruce Millan): We argued this matter at some considerable length in Committee, and in fact the arguments which all three hon. Members have used this evening are really very much more relevant to the two Amendments which were not selected than to the one which was. The hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) did not explain what the effect of the Amendment would be, but I shall, I hope, remedy that deficiency a little later.
Perhaps I might deal with some of the more general arguments which I agree are certainly more important than perhaps the strict terms of the Amendment. As I have said, this matter was discussed exhaustively in Committee, but I am perfectly happy to rehearse some of the arguments that I used there.
All three hon. Members have in one way or another said that they are not arguing against the Ministry of Labour system as such. In fact, the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire rather gave the impression that that had never been a matter of argument at all, and it was simply a question whether the teachers had confidence in the present system of arbitration. That is a wholly inaccurate account of the objections to the system proposed by the Government as they were originally outlined by the Educational Institute of Scotland.
Originally there was a suggestion that the Ministry of Labour had no experience in the kind of field with which it would be dealing here. There was also a suggestion that since the Minister of Labour was a colleague of the Secretary of State for Scotland he might act with bias, or be thought to act with bias, in the appointment of arbiters, and that in some sort of way the arbiters appointed would be partial to the Secretary of State

and not discharge their duties with complete impartiality.
A further suggestion was made that the Ministry of Labour procedure was inappropriate because this was a case in which the Government would be meeting a large part of the bill for any increase in teachers' salaries, and that this, again, cast some doubt on the partiality or impartiality of the arbiters appointed.
None of these arguments stood up to scrutiny. I dealt with them in the Second Reading debate and in Committee. It is interesting to note that none of them is now being used. They were the original arguments which the E.I.S. —the only teachers' body to object to the new procedure—put up. They are not the arguments which the hon. Member used tonight, and we should have that on the record as a matter of strict accuracy.

Mr. MacArthur: I did not advance those arguments tonight, but I could have done so. I do not believe that the teaching profession in Scotland will have confidence in the system proposed by the hon. Member. One reason is that the system of arbitration which he proposes would not be seen to be impartial. I would gladly rehearse tonight the arguments previously raised, but I am now asking the hon. Gentleman to tell us why he regards the Lord President of the Court of Session as incapable of running a fair arbitration system, especially one in which the teachers already have confidence.

Mr. Millan: That intervention did not add anything to what the hon. Member originally said. It does not answer my point that the ground on which this proposal is being objected to has been changed considerably during the course of our discussions.

Mr. MacArthur: The hon. Member is quibbling.

Mr. Millan: I am not quibbling. The hon. Member neither mentioned the original arguments this evening nor accepted the original argument that the involvement of the Ministry of Labour somehow casts considerable doubts on the impartiality of the procedure. The basic argument put up by the hon. Member this evening was based on the question, "Why make any change in the


existing system?" If we were to accept that argument we would not have any Bill. We are making considerable changes in the method by which negotiations to settle teachers' salaries are conducted. It is very difficult to understand why this part of the machinery—which is by no means the most important part—should hang over from the previous situation without any kind of examination as to its relevance, especially in the situation which will arise when the new machinery is in operation.
The new system involves a complete change of circumstances. For example, there will be participation of the Secretary of State in the negotiating machinery. The Secretary of State will be committed to the agreements reached in the negotiating machinery; he will be committed, except in exceptional circumstances, to the decisions of the arbiters, when they are dealing with an entirely different set of circumstances from those which exist at present.
I have been asked why I think that the Lord President of the Court of Session is not the appropriate person to appoint arbiters under the new system. The hon. Gentleman gave part of the answer when he said that, if there were no system of arbitration, if we were introducing something new, he would have no objection to our system.
11.30 p.m.
I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Sir M. Galpern) should be disturbed about this. In the strict sense of the term, the Lord President has no competence in appointing arbiters for salary negotiations. I should be distressed if that remark, which I used in Committee, were taken out of context, but that is what my hon. Friend has done. If he had read the rest of the paragraph he would have seen that I was not suggesting that the Lord President did not exercise his present function with the highest distinction and judgment. I then made the remark which my hon. Friend quoted out of context.
I said further that, in the strict sense of the term competence, the function of appointing arbiters was not something which he was called upon to have to fulfil his high office, and that therefore he was in a different position from

arbiters appointed under the auspices of the Minister of Labour. In the light of that complete quotation, any suggestion that I was questioning the ability or judgment of the Lord President is completely unfair. I am surprised that my hon. Friend should have quoted that sentence without taking account of the rest—

Sir M. Galpern: In the rest of that quotation, my hon. Friend said:
… and in that respect he is in a different position from arbiters appointed under the auspices of the Minister of Labour."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Grand Committee; 11th April, 1967, c. 37.]
The innuendo is that the arbiters he would appoint are different from those appointed by the Minister of Labour.

Mr. Millan: Of course they are. My hon. Friend ought to know the kind of arbiters likely to be appointed by the Minister of Labour and those who have been appointed by the Lord President. I have never pretended that they are likely to be the same people. I made this explanation in Committee, but it bears repetition since my hon. Friend and others apparently have not read what I said.
The Lord President appoints three people completely independently—any-one he likes. The Minister of Labour would appoint an independent chairman after consultation with both sides of the negotiating committee. There would be no question of his acting completely independently or in an arbitrary sense. The other two members would be selected one from a panel considered suitable by the teachers and the other from a panel considered suitable by the management.
It is difficult to see why that kind of procedure should arouse any suspicion that the Minister of Labour would make appointments with partiality. This kind of system, which is common elsewhere, would result in a panel of arbiters competent in the field and acceptable to both sides of the negotiating committee. If we were proposing a violation of justice and fair play, I would expect the members of the new panel to object violently to our proposals. But that is not true even of the other two teachers' organisations, not to mention the local authority representatives on the negotiating committee. I therefore do not accept that


the kind of arrangements which we are proposing here will not have the confidence of the new negotiating committee. It is true that the E.I.S. has had these objections, but I do not believe that they are shared in any way by the other members of the negotiating committee, and certainly not held to the same extent as they seem to be held by the E.I.S.
The Amendment is defective for a number of reasons. It is important that the arbitration arrangements, whatever they may be, should be settled before the committee begins working. It would clearly be undesirable that we should wait to settle the arbitration arrangements until a situation had arisen in which one side or the other of the committee wished to go to arbitration. That would obviously be a very undesirable situation because we might then find that the committee was unable to agree on the kind of arbitration that it wanted and we should be in a position of deadlock.
It is therefore necessary to settle the question of the arbitration arrangements now, or at least at an early stage in the functioning of the committee, and that it is provided for by the Secretary of State having power to make the arrangements after consultation under subsection (2) with the prospective or actual members of the panel. These consultations have already taken place on an informal basis and they will be put on a formal basis when the Bill becomes an Act. Whatever the results of these formal consultations, the arrangements which are to be reached about arbitration have to be certain for the reasons which I have outlined at the start of the committee and they cannot be left until later.
If the Amendment were effective—and I do not believe that, strictly, it would be effective—in doing what I understand the sponsors would like it to do, it would introduce an element of uncertainty into the arrangements. At the point at which arbitration was to be used, one would not be certain what the exact form of the arbitration would be. That would be wholly undesirable and completely unworkable because a situation might then arise in which there was no agreement about the form of arbitration. We have to make up our minds about this now.
This matter has been dealt with at great length on Second Reading and in Committee, and tonight I have again gone over the arguments. I listened carefully to everything that was said, but no attempt was made to meet the case that I put, particularly in Committee, and none of the arguments that I developed there has been answered effectively. Indeed, no attempt has been made to answer them. I therefore must ask the House to reject the Amendment and to stick to the proposals which the Government have made in the Bill.

Mr. MacArthur: The failure has been completely on the Minister's side because he has given not one effective word of reply to the Amendment. He spoke of the uncertainty which would arise if the Amendment were accepted. While what he said is correct, he will accept it from me that this precise form of wording had to be adopted for procedural reasons of which he is well aware.
If he wished to have certainty, all that was necessary for him to do was to say that at the next stage of the Bill in another place the Lord President of the Court of Session would be introduced in place of the Minister of Labour in Clause 3 as the person who appoints arbiters. The point which he well knows we are making would have been met, and this would have represented a great advance and would have held out much brighter prospects of the Bill working successfully in the future.
The hon. Gentleman has not convinced me, nor I believe my hon. Friends, of the reason why he wishes to dispose of the Lord President of the Court of Session. I am delighted to see the hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Sir M. Galpern) supporting us yet again on this point. He quoted some of the words used by the Minister at an earlier stage. On that occasion the Minister said that the Lord President had no particular competence in this matter, and he repeated that statement tonight. In fact, the Lord President has supreme competence in these matters. The Minister is, therefore, saying that the head of the Scottish judiciary is not capable of appointing arbiters who will do a proper and fair job. Is that the sort of insult the hon. Gentleman is offering the Scottish courts?

Mr. Millan: The hon. Gentleman knows hat I did not say that. He also knows that these are the only salary negotiations in which the Lord President of the Court of Session has any kind of responsibility at all. The Lord President has no experience of this. He does not do this in any other sphere and if the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends feel so strongly about the competence and efficiency or the Lord President in these matters, it is strange that when they were in office for 13 years they did no extend his field of activity.

Mr. MacArthur: The Minister has again shown that he does not understand the argument. This is not a question of extending the role of the Lord President of the Court of Session into other spheres of arbitration. We are not suggesting that. We are merely suggesting that the Lord President, who for 22 years has acted as the authority who appoints arbiters in disputes of this kind, should continue to perform that rôle.

Division No. 321.]
AYES
[11.43 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Grimond, Rt. Hn, J.
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Gurden, Harold
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Astor, John
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Baker, W. H. K.
Hail-Davis, A. G. F.
Percival, Ian


Black, Sir Cyril
Harrison, Cot. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Prior, J. M. L.


Blaker, Peter
Hawkins, Paul
Pym, Francis


Bossom, sir Clive
Heseltine, Michael
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Braine, Bernard
Higgins, Terence L.
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Hiley, Joseph
Russell, Sir Ronald


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&amp;M)
Hill, J. E. B.
Scott, Nicholas


Burden, F. A.
Holland, Philip
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Campbell, Gordon
Hordern, Peter
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Carlisle, Mark
Hunt, John
Stodart, Anthony


Clegg, Walter
Jenkin, Patrlck (Woodford)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)


Corfield, F. V.
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Costain, A, P.
Jopling, Michael
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow,Cathcart)


Dance, James
Kimball, Marcus
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Temple, John M.


Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Kitson, Timothy
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Drayson, G. B.
Loveys, W. H.
Walters, Dennis


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Mac Arthur, Ian
Ward, Dame Irene


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross&amp;Crom'ty)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hon. William


Errington, Sir Eric
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Eyre, Reginald
Maginnis, John E.
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Cilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Maude, Angus
Worsley, Marcus


Glover, Sir Douglas
Maxwell-Hyslop, R, J.
Wright, Esmond


Goodhart, Philip
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Younger, Hn. George


Goodhew, Victor
Mills, Peter (Torrington)



Gower, Raymond
Mitcampbell, Norman
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Grant, Anthony
More, Jasper
Mr David Mitchell and


Grant-Ferris, R.
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Mr Hector Monro.


Gresham Cooke, R.
Murton, Oscar





NOES


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Barnes, Michael
Booth, Albert


Alldritt, Walter
Baxter, William
Boston, Terence


Allen, Schoiefield
Bence, Cyril
Braddock, Mrs. E. M.


Anderson, Donald
Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Bray, Dr. Jeremy


Armstrong, Ernest
Bidwell, Sydney
Brooks, Edwin


Ashley, Jack
Binns, John
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne.W.)


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Bishop, E. S.
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Blackburn, F.
Cant, R. B.

If the Minister continues in his obstinate insistence that the Lord President has no competence in this matter, he must be reminded of what he said about the conduct of arbitration proceedings in the past, when he said that the highest standard of discretion and judgment had been shown by the Lord President. That being the hon. Gentleman's view, I fail to understand why the Government propose to remove the Lord President from the role which he has carried out so well, and with the confidence of the teaching profession, during the past years.

I warn the Minister yet again that, by rejecting the Amendment, he is taking action which will undermine the confidence of the teaching profession not only in the Bill but in the good faith of the Government towards the teaching profession in Scotland.

Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 94, Noes, 148.

Carmichael, Neil
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Palmer, Arthur


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hoy, James
Park, Trevor


Coe, Denis
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Pavitt, Laurence


Coleman, Donald
Hynd, John
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Concannon, J. D.
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Conlan, Bernard
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Johnson, Carol (Lewieham, S.)
Reynolds, G. W.


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Davidson, Arthur (Aeorlngton)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Daviea, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Kenyon, Clifford
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth' stow, E.)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Rose, Paul


Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lawson, George
Rowland, Christopher (Meriden)


Daviea, Robert (Cambridge)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)


Dewar, Donald
Lestor, Miss Joan
Ryan, John


Dickens, James
Lomas, Kenneth
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Doig, Peter
Loughlin, Charles
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyncth (Exeter)
Luard, Evan
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire,W.)


Eadie, Alex
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Thomas George (Cardiff, W.)


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
MacColl, James
Tinn, James


Ensor, David
MacDermot, Niall
Urwin, T. W.


Faulds, Andrew
McGuire, Michael
Varley, Eric G.


Fernyhough, E.
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Finch, Harold
Mackintosh, John P.
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)
MacMillan, Malcolm (western Isles)
Wallace, George


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
MacPherson, Malcolm
Watkins, David (Consett)


Ford, Ben
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Forrester, John
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Wellbeloved, James


Fowter, Gerry
Manuel, Archie
Whitaker, Ben


Freeson, Reginald
Marquand, David
Whitlock, William


Galpern, Sir Myer
Mason, Roy
Wilkins, W. A.


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Milfan, Bruce
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Miller, Or. M. S.
Williams, Mrs. snirley (Hitchin)


Gregory, Arnold
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)


Grey, Charles (Durham)
Morgan, Eryetan (Cardiganshire)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Murray, Albert
Winnick, David


Harper, Joseph
Neal, Harold
Winterbottom, R. E.


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Norwood, Christopher
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Haseldine, Norman
Oakes, Gordon



Hilton, W. S.
O'Malley, Brian
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hooley, Frank
Orme, Stanley
Mr Charles R. Morris and


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Oswald, Thomas
Mr Neil McBride


Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Owen, Will (Morpeth)

Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): The Question is, That the Bill be now read the Third time. As many as are of that opinion say "Aye"; to the contrary "No"—

11.50 p.m.

Mr. MacArthur: On a point of order. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) rose in the hope of catching your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Mr. Taylor.

Mr. Willis: Further to that point of order. Had not the voices in fact been collected?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The voices had not been collected.

Mr. Taylor: It comes ill from the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) to make such an intervention when I have

been present throughout the day and have not said a word on the subject of the Water (Scotland) Bill or on the Remuneration of Teachers (Scotland) Bill and now intervene simply to ask a short question. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East has been more responsible than any other hon. Member for keeping hon. Members up night after night on matters which to us did not appear to be as significant as they did to him. I hope that the Under-Secretary will answer my question as effectively as he answered the detailed points which we put on the Amendment of which we have just disposed.
Having read it very carefully, I am sure that this is a splendid Bill, but will it be of any help whatever in finding a speedy and effective way to reach a conclusion on the Roberts Report on the supply of teachers, especially in Glasgow, where there is a very serious shortage and where, although we have only one fifth of the children of Scotland, we have about 60 per cent. of the part-time teachers, thus having more than our share of the teacher shortage?
This is an urgent matter. We have been waiting for action by the Government, or even an indication that they support the principle of the Report. The Government have advanced all kinds of reasons for delaying a decision. Will the Bill help in any way to speed up a decision on this vital issue so that Glasgow no longer has to carry more than its share o' the teacher shortage? The situation in Glasgow is alarming and something must be done. Will the Bill shorten what seems to be the unreasonable delay in reaching a decision about the Roberts Report?

11.54 p.m.

Mr. Millan: I was delighted to hear the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) say that this was a splendid Bill, and I hope that from that it follows that he voted with the Government and not with his right hon. Friends on the Amendment. In any case, it is a splendid Bill which, I hope, will make a considerable difference to the progress of negotiations and to the way in which the negotiations are conducted for the settlement of teachers' salaries in Scotland.
But the Bill does not deal with the actual settlements themselves, the level of the settlements, or particular recommendations like those of the Roberts Report. I answered Questions about the recommendations of the Roberts Report less than a fortnight ago when I made the Government's position clear.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: It is not clear to me.

Mr. Millan: It may not be clear to the hon. Gentleman. There are a number of things which are not clear to him. However, I answered the point less than a fortnight ago and as it is not strictly relevant to the Bill, I had better leave it there.

11.55 p.m.

Mr. MacArthur: I share the feeling of shock experienced by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) on the intervention of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis). I remember the many hours during which the hon. Gentleman entertained us when he was in opposition. He is the last hon. Member who should try to advise any hon. Member on this side to join him in the "silent service"

to which he used to belong and from which we are glad that he has now escaped.
I am obliged to the Under-Secretary for replying, although he did so inadequately, to the point raised by my hon. Friend. It is within the competence of the Bill to consider the relevant remuneration of teachers. It is clear that there are certain priorities of need which will have to be considered by the Committee when it meets. I will not rehearse all of them now, but one of them certainly is the critical shortage of teachers in Glasgow. Whatever the Under-Secretary may say about what he said in reply to Questions a little while ago, we on this side are dismayed that the Government have sat on the Roberts Report for close on nine months without any sort of action. We are disturbed that the Government's main interest in education at present appears to be to try to impose on all local authorities a uniform system of education whether it meets the needs of local authorities or not. To do this in the name of social justice, at a time when 3,000 children in Scotland are receiving part-time education, shows a complete lack of understanding of the priorities needed in the educational structure.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not think that that arises on Third Reading. We are dealing only with the remuneration of teachers.

Mr. MacArthur: I am obliged, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I feel strongly about this question, as do the people of Scotland.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I do not care whether the hon. Member feels strongly about it. It does not arise on Third Reading.

Mr. MacArthur: I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. These are matters of concern, but I will return to the Bill.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have ruled that these matters must not be discussed on Third Reading. It is no use the hon. Gentleman repeating what has been said already.

Mr. MacArthur: I did not want to appear to be discourteous. I simply said that I would return at once to the Bill.
As I indicated earlier, we regard the Bill as an excellent Measure. I believe that it improves the present structure. It provides for representation of the Secretary of State on the negotiating committee. That, I believe, will remove a weakness which we have experienced in the past and remove one of the reasons for so much dissent in past years. I hope that, with this system of representation by the Secretary of State on the committee and with the plans which the hon. Gentleman explained to us the other day about the representation of the interested parties on the committee, we can enter on a new harmony in salary matters within the profession.
I very much regret the Government's reluctance to make a change in Clause 3. I firmly believe that the Government have, by rejecting the proposed change, insisted on maintaining a proposal which will weaken the confidence of teachers, or at any rate of a large body of teachers, in the new committee. I hope that I am wrong. However, I believe that the Under-Secretary has run a very real risk which he should never have involved himself in. Even now, perhaps at a later stage, the hon. Gentleman might give further thought to this point.
Having said that, I commend the Bill to the House and I hope that it will prove to be the beginning of a new and happier chapter in relations with the profession.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

COUNTRYSIDE (SCOTLAND) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question put (pursuant to Standing Order No. 62) (Public Bills relating exclusively to Scotland), That the Bill be committed to the Scottish Standing Committee.—[Dr. Dickson Mabon.]

Question agreed to.

Bill (deemed to have been read a Second time) committed to the Scottish Standing Committee.

COUNTRYSIDE (SCOTLAND) [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision for the better enjoyment of the Scottish countryside, for the establishment of a Countryside Commission for Scotland, and for other purposes, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of:—

(1) the expenses incurred by the Secretary of State under that Act—

(a) in making payments in respect of expenses of a Countryside Commission for Scotland;
(b) in paying grants to local authorities in respect of expenditure incurred by them in relation to the countryside in or in connection with—

(i) the exercise of powers conferred on them by that Act;
(ii) the exercise of their powers under section 24 of the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960;
(iii) the exercise of their powers under section 2 of the Local Government (Development and Finance) (Scotland) Act 1964;
(iv) the payment of compensation under section 25 or an order made under section 26 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1947;
(v) the exercise of their powers of acquiring land under or by virtue of any of the enactments referred to in the preceding heads of this sub-paragraph, not exceeding three-quarters of that expenditure;
(c) in defraying or contributing towards expenditure incurred for the purposes of approved proposals relating to long-distance routes;
(d) in acquiring land for public access, in defraying or contributing to the cost of managing that land and in carrying out work thereon;
(e) in providing, arranging for or assisting in the provision of tourist, recreational or sporting facilities and any equipment, facilities or works ancillary thereto on land held by him;
(f) in the appointment of wardens as respects any land or waterway;

(2) any increase attributable to the said Act of the present Session in the sums payable out of moneys so provided under any enactment relating to local government in Scotland or under the Forestry Act 1967;

(3) any administrative expenses incurred by the Secretary of State under the said Act of the present Session.—[Dr. Dickson Mabon.]

ADJOURNMENT

Resolved, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. Charles R. Morris.]

Adjourned accordingly at Twelve o'clock.